30 ms·
Massachusetts Sues Exxon over Climate Change, Accusing the Oil Giant of Fraud
- cryptofits 7y agoThis case will be recorded in the history books as the court case that decided the fate of the human race.
- Throw_Away_3759 7y agoA case about whether Exxon committed fraud by misleading investors about climate change will decide the fate of the human race?
- jacquesm 7y agoI highly doubt that.
- ahbyb 7y agoIs this a parody or something?
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoI hope not, that one sad way to decide it.
- TipiKoivisto 7y agoThat's why we should sue people who are responsible, not the company. If your are criminal, start a company, so they can not sue you, only the company. #protip
- sambull 7y agoNope, actions of from my grandparents have already, and most of the people in charge Senate and president are over retirement age. Prepare for the worst, as its baked in. These people aren't letting go so expect little to no mitigation in the next decade.
- lordnacho 7y agoIs there no direct way to sue the company? As in, "You made a big environmental mess, pay this fine". This seems to my non lawyer eyes to sound more like "Hey you lied to the investors who wouldn't otherwise have bought your securities". Which is also a thing, but seemingly a bit convoluted.
- lozenge 7y agoI believe the environmental laws are that the EPA makes specific rules and companies have to follow them. This reduces uncertainty for businesses over what is an acceptable level or form of pollution. In Bush Jr years, the EPA had to be taken to court to even accept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants, meaning they have to be regulated. The only other law I can think of would be reckless endangerment, hopefully somebody here can explain why it wouldn't apply. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
- donatj 7y agoI really don’t follow the logic here. Wouldn’t denying the global supply chain the fuel it needs to provide food and goods be more reckless than not? If we just stopped using oil millions if not billions of people would die from malnutrition in a far shorter timeframe than global warming is going to cause.
- 23throwaway23 7y agoHeroin dealers are a great analogy here. Yea, if you cut off the supply to an addict they go through a process of withdrawal. And these companies have been working hard to manufacture demand and get more addicts. The world did fine without tonnes of plastics for quite a bit of time. Yea, it would require rethinking industrial civilization (unclear it would survive), but we need to stop weaning ourselves off this toxic asset ASAP and as quickly as possible. In contrast, the oil and gas companies are going to spend $5 TRILLION over the next 10 years to develop NEW oil and gas reserves, and expect to grow their markets, sales and obviously, emissions.
- spodek 7y agoI hope justice is served with Exxon, but I also hope people motivate personal change by realizing that most of us did what Exxon did in the same time on an individual level. Growing up in the 70s, I heard about sea level rise and global warming. Nearly everyone I know flies (and eats meat, drives, etc) more than necessary for their profit and pleasure and all the things they know contribute, using excuses similar to Exxon's but translated for themselves. Anyone who makes excuses for the emissions that puts Americans (and likely your country if you aren't American) so high up in emissions -- if we think Exxon should change, shouldn't we? In this quote, substitute for "Fossil fuel industry" and "Exxon", "we" and see how well it fits. I'm not talking about blame but taking responsibility for change now. > Scientists have known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change. There is so much evidence that at least 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. It’s as settled as the link between smoking and cancer. > The fossil fuel industry has known about the role of its products in global warming for 60 years. Exxon’s own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, these companies have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. All the while, the science is clear that climate-catalyzed damages have worsened, storms have intensified, and droughts and heatwaves have become more frequent and severe, while forests have been damaged and wildfires have burned through the country.
- afpx 7y agoStrongly disagree. Many Americans have understood for 50 years that the only way to stop fossil fuels use would be through government regulations. But, companies like Exxon have continually used their lobbying muscle to stop it.
- spodek 7y agoYou state strong agreement then -- justice served with Exxon, as well as curbing what stops regulation. You mentioned one source of curbing -- companies like Exxon. I cited another -- the people of the U.S. and our lifestyles. Independent of people's talk, the U.S. government is well representing our behavior. There's nothing stopping us from polluting less as individuals. We don't, saying government should tell us what to do. Politicians know that if voters say one thing and do another, they'll vote consistently with what they do. You want to stop curbing environmental regulation? Show legislators that voters want it. Right now voters overwhelmingly show they want the opposite. They fly around the world for vacation when they could go camping, etc.
- _Nat_ 7y agoThe complaint [1] is 211 pages long, but it seems to argue that ExxonMobil misled both investors and consumers about climate change. a. Allegedly, investors were wronged by being presented with misleading projections about the company's future prospects. b. Allegedly, consumers were wronged by being misled about the impact of the company's products. [1]: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20-%20Comm.%20v.%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20...
- lugg 7y agoIt only makes sense to use the term allegedly when something isn't yet proven. I'm curious how you believe either of those statements are anything but fact given what we now know.
- robbya 7y agoI think allegedly is correct in that there is an expected court case, and the terminology can be switch if the case finds these statements to be true.
- ivanhoe 7y agoBelieves are important in churches, and in courts these are all just allegations that need to be proven first. That's how the law works.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- derp_dee_derp 7y agoShhh! The church of climate change has found a witch and is conducting an inquisition here! Who needs the law when a company is literally causing climate armegeddon?!?!?!??
- Avalaxy 7y agoI'm all for sueing companies like Exxon for misleading people and spreading lies, but I also find it weird that we're trying to blame the big oil companies like it's all their fault. After all, it is the consumers themselves who create a massive demand for (cheap) oil.
- donatj 7y agoIt’s not just consumers, it’s the entire fabric of modern society. The machinery that makes everything in modern life work runs on fossil fuels, and up until recently there wasn’t another viable option. Even so, with limitations on batteries it’s debatable how viable our options are now. Moving massive payloads takes exponentially more energy than a moving a single driver. Society is built on moving things. Every part of the building you are in now, every piece of food you eat got there via fossil fuels. Like it or not we’re stuck with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future unless the entire fabric of society changes, and I’m not putting my money on that.
- ageofwant 7y agoWe have modern nuclear technology that can replace all coal plants in a decade if we decide to do that. But we wont.
- elliekelly 7y agoAnd oil company lobbyist fear-mongering is at least part of the reason we won’t make that switch.
- dmos62 7y agoThe "but we won't" insights are spiteful and not that insightful. Here's another one: we could go back to pre-industrial lifestyles.
- metiscus 7y agoNot without a large depopulation event of some kind.
- neiman 7y agoWhat are the possible results? If it's only fines than it may not deter anyone from doing similar things in the future (in case the gain is big enough, i.e., bigger than the fine). Is there a possibility for personal responsibility and jail time for the people who did this?
- _Nat_ 7y agoThe last two pages of the complaint [1] list its specific requests in "VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF". This includes a request for $5,000 each violation of a consumer-protection-act, recovery of legal fees, and a request for "comprehensive injunctive relief". However, I suspect that the main thing may be an attempt to get the court to declare that there're on-going "deceptive practices" (first item in that section). I'd guess that, if they can establish wrong-doing, then they'd have a basis for later follow-up actions. [1]: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20-%20Comm.%20v.%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20...
- gremlinsinc 7y agoA big enough fine and multiple law suits... Maybe even a class action multi state/ multinational law suit could end their company and probably many like them who did the same thing. Exxon has received billions in tax subsidies. I'd be happy to see the federal government sue to get every subsidy dime back, and any dismantle their entire company.
- jahewson 7y agoExxon may be prepared to settle the suit in return for not engaging in this kind of behaviour in the future, possibly with court oversight.
- 6d6b73 7y agoMassachusetts should now return all the taxes collected from selling gas. After all if selling gas is fraud, so is collecting taxes on it. :)
- avsteele 7y agoThis is some combination of grandstanding by the state prosecutors, abuse of the extremely vague statutes under which such suits can be brought, and a threat to the rule of law. It strikes me as implausible that even if Exxon has published all of its internal climate research it would have made a substantive difference in people's likelihood to invest, or to consumers propensity to purchase Exxon gas. Because these are the only outcomes germane to the case aren't they? You can tell by the comments here that people want Exxon punished, they don't care much about the means by which this occurs.
- amiga_500 7y agoThey didn’t just withhold, they actively sowed disinformation https://climateinvestigations.org/drilled-climate-change-denial/ https://climateinvestigations.org/drilled-climate-change-den...
- Gravityloss 7y agoAnd the think tanks and lobbying organizations are funded to this day, continuing to fight against climate legislation.
- seventytwo 7y agoExactly. It’s fraud against every citizen and shareholder.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoMy understanding is that the fraud claim — if it matches the fraud claim in the New York case, at least – is this. Exxon had an internal figure used to represent one kind of climate change costs for one purpose. Investors never saw this. There was also an external figure shared with investors, to help investors assess risks to Exxon stock. The case for fraud is that these weren't different for a good reason, but because they sought to mislead investors. The pricier of these figures is the external figure, so they're being charged for being too alarmist with the public. In either case I don't think it has much to do with the previously linked research claims in this thread. (To this, there is added some consumer fraud by... not labelling gas pumps with warnings about global warnings, among other things, I think it was? This is the weaker claim, and I would not expect it to prevail.)
- seventytwo 7y agoGood. This is no different than cigarette companies knowingly selling a cancerous product and misleading the public. How many more times do we have to be subjected to known harms and disinformation campaigns before we outlaw this kind of corporate behavior?
- whydoyoucare 7y agoSimilar argument can be made for fast-food, frozen and heavily processed food, and many other daily use items. By your yardstick, all of them spread misinformation and mislead the public since the harms of consuming fast-food or overly processed food are known. I then wonder, why this happens to be the case. Can't fathom, really.
- seventytwo 7y agoYou’ve already demonstrated your bad faith in this thread. I’m not going to engage with you or your strawmen again.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- whydoyoucare 7y agoLet us assume Exxon Mobil suddenly aligns with the ideals of the anti-climate-change-brigade (like the state), and pulls the plug on all Oil and Fossil fuel business. All other companies follow suit. What plans does the state have to provide altnerate sources of energy? Zilch! (Remember in this scenario, Norway will collapse economically, from what I recall). No only is the lawsuit frivolous, it also indicates short-sightedness on the part of the State, not to metion, a huge waste of taxpayer money. I also believe this to be a case of "virtue signaling" and selective outrage than any meaningful change. Climate change to me is not black-and-white, there are infinite shades of gray. I think firstly the word "crisis" should be disassociated from "climate change". (I also know my response will be downvoted and I will be told so, which is another case of virtue signaling. As I stated earlier, I don't write for the HN brownie points).
- seventytwo 7y agoIn your completely absurd strawman scenario, you’re right. In real life, it would take (is taking) decades to switch over. Your comment is totally moot.
- iikoolpp 7y agoLet us assume that a situation that will never happen will happen. Suddenly, everything is bad! Therefore you are all filthy virtue signallers.
- CptFribble 7y agoHere's an alternate perspective: Let's say Exxon did suppress information about climate change and their role in it. Thus, compared to a world of perfect transparency and information, Exxon was able to earn more profit, because the market lacked the information to price their products correctly and transition away from fossil fuels decades ago. Had Massachusetts access to Exxon's suppressed information decades ago, taxes could have been enacted on their products and the money used to transition to different power sources. In this case, maybe it's correct for the state to sue, to claw back some of the money they would've had to make the transition by now. Also, if Norway has based their entire economy on fossil fuels then that's their own kind of short-sightedness, because even in a non-climate-change world most experts agree the fossil fuels will run out eventually.
- yters 7y agoSeems a lot like the whole impeachment, even though no president has ever been impeached. Just a bunch of empty virtue signalling that won't make a real difference.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoIt'll make a difference. Finding a bogeyman and making a lot of noise about making them pay is a great way to launch a political career.
- Reedx 7y agoWhen Exxon realized the problem decades ago, they could've lead a forward-looking campaign. Investing in renewables and nuclear technology. If they had done that, maybe today we'd be mostly powered by clean energy. Here's the kicker: It would've been a long term win-win for both Exxon and the world. Putting themselves in a strong position to capitalize on the transition and even be a respected player.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoThis post is a facile fantasy. To be clear, while you are not required to give a flying fig about whether or not Exxon investors earn a return, you can't exactly expect them to all line up to gleefully throw their money away, either. That's a charity, not a business. And trust me, if we compare the financial returns on investment for renewables and nuclear technology over the past N decades, versus Exxon's returns today? Definitely not a win-win.
- Reedx 7y agoI'm talking about a long term view. If they had started investing back then, they'd likely be in a better position today and going forward. A leader in future fuels instead of clinging onto fossil fuels, which is definitively short sighted.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoExxon is worth $293 billion right now. Its earnings over the past N decades are probably worth more. For that money, you could buy alternative energy providers outright. You could buy Siemens (~$50 billion), who, in addition to transportation and other lines of businesses, have a big renewables business, and are among the world leaders in nuclear ... or, well, they were, until 2011, when they abandoned that line of business entirely. There is no financial case to be made here whatsoever.
- smt1 7y agoI don't disagree, but Exxon might have had the cachet, especially in the 1980s, to speed up decreasing the carbon intensity of the economy. The entire energy sector is now <= 5% the size of the entire S&P, down from 18%, so it's unclear if energy companies still have that level of cachet. Now, going forward, in 2020, there might be a different calculus. Usually, the market cap/stock price of a company reflects future cash flow. For an E&P company, much of Exxon's valuation comes from the cash flow expectation on its oil reserves. That's problematic if some of those oil reserves are in effect stranded assets. Certainly not all will likely, but say, things like the tar sands? It very well could be.
- RickJWagner 7y agoIt's hard for me to imagine a positive outcome from this for either Exxon's shareholders or the public at large. I imagine it will translate pretty well into higher prices at the pump for everyone.