Here'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 trans

Here'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.