The Conservation Law Foundation is taking Exxon to court over water pollution in Massachusetts.
[In the Autumn of 2015], exposés by InsideClimate News [1] and the Los Angeles Times confirmed that oil giant ExxonMobil knew as early as the late 1970s that climate change caused by human activities would be devastating if left unchecked. But instead of taking action, the corporation lied to the government, and to all of us, by funding an aggressive campaign trying to foment doubt about climate science.
So, we started our own investigation, focused on how this climate deceit has affected us closer to home. We found that despite knowing the harm [that] climate change could cause, ExxonMobil left its oil storage facility in Everett, MA on the Mystic [River] vulnerable to flooding from storms and rising seas. Now it's just a matter of time before a giant storm floods our streets with a toxic soup from Exxon's dilapidated facilities.
In an effort to finally hold ExxonMobil accountable for its climate deceit, gross negligence, and violations of federal pollution regulations, CLF today [September 29] officially filed suit[PDF] against the corporate giant. It's a landmark suit, and not only because it's the first major lawsuit to be filed against the company since the #ExxonKnew revelations were uncovered.
[...] This case presents a tremendous opportunity for change, and the potential to set a precedent for the dynamic role of local advocacy in taking on transnational corporations. It also shows us that no company, organization, or government agency is too big to be held responsible for its actions, and no one town or resident is too small or too weak to demand environmental justice.
[...] Learn more about the lawsuit here.
[1] Data Transfer Interrupted Google cache
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday September 30 2016, @04:26PM
Yay!
Hallelujah!
About time!
Great!
Shiny!
Crackin'
Good job!
Ummmmm.....
Wonderful?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:49PM
Conservation is an anti-conservative plot!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:53PM
The Koch brothers, and the right wing media instead.
But not Donald Trump because he's too stupid to know better.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @05:10PM
Please don't put half of your comment in the title.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @11:57PM
Only a third of the comment is in the title.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Saturday October 01 2016, @09:00AM
Do it in future posts.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday September 30 2016, @04:59PM
Big Oil's greed and callousness may ultimately be far more damaging than anything any other industry has ever done, and they've pulled plenty of whoppers. Next to most of the planet's major coastal cities drowned, millions of people forced to relocate and going hungry when crops fail thanks to climate change, resulting in war, possibly even nuclear war and the destruction of our civilization, things like Union Carbide killing 4000 in Bhopal, India, fishing and tourism industries ruined and health of thousands harmed by oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez and British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon, TEPCO's Fukushima power plant forcing the evacuation of contaminated land for decades and perhaps centuries, and Big Tobacco continuing to peddle their customer sickening and killing products, seem relatively minor.
These corporate organizations want to cling to the notion that they are actually small fish in a very big world, and their actions have no lasting effect. They don't want to be responsible. They've gotten away with that attitude for years. Why should they change? So it's up to us to do something about this. And that something may have to be profound. Making them pay for their messes won't change their basic nature. This lawsuit can only be a start. Like, make it so corporations aren't plutocracies. Change how markets work. Stop idolizing money. Not everything of value gets measured. money can't be a universal ruler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 30 2016, @06:14PM
Good title. I don't entirely agree with the body of your post, but damned good title.
To stop anti-social corporate behaiour, we only need remember one thing. No corporation has a right to even EXIST unless it is approved of by WE THE PEOPLE. A corporation is supposed to have a charter, a mission, a mission statement. The de facto mission of corporations today is "to make money hand over fist, at any cost".
That is sufficient reason to revoke licenses. All corporations are incorporated under the laws of one state, or another. The states can easily crack down on the anti-social behaviour. But, "we the people" have forgotten that. Basically, we worship money, and praise any entity which manages to control huge quantities of money. Apple, or any of the other huge companies, which manipulate tax laws to their own advantage. Europe is taking a stab at getting them under control. If the US, Russia, and China all cooperated, all that tax dodging could be stopped, once and for all.
But, Exxon's anti-social conduct is a helluva lot worse than mere tax dodging.
Again, the major nations need to cooperate to put a stop to it. Europe probably leads in the quest for renewable energy sources. The US? It's like we just don't give a damn. China? They're only beginning to feel the effects of, and acknowledge that, pollution is bad. Russia? As near as I can tell, they aren't even involved in the discussion.
Anyway - we can just shut them down, any time. If/when our elected representatives grow some gonads, they can take on the corporate world, and force them to do, or not do, anything at all.
Exxon won't cooperate with green laws? Revoke their business license, in each and every jurisdiction in which they hold a license. One or two hits like that, and their stock will plummet. Basically, they wise up real quick, or they die a painful corporate death.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday September 30 2016, @07:52PM
when you are right, you are right...
korporations are in the saddle, and the devil take the hindmost...
(guess what, 99% of us are the hindmost...)
(Score: 2) by EQ on Friday September 30 2016, @09:48PM
"No corporation has a right to even EXIST unless it is approved of by WE THE PEOPLE. " For the USA - where is that in the Constitution? Stop making stuff up.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday September 30 2016, @11:48PM
Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to create corporations?
IIUC at the time the US Constitution was written, that right was reserved to the states, and the feds had no such power. There hasn't been an amendment specifically authorizing such an action, so the Feds have no legal right to charter, recognize, or approve the existence of corporations. They have, indeed, grabbed the right. A search of the text doesn't show the word corporation appearing in either the text of the constitution or any of the amendments.
So much for legalistics. The GP post did not refer to the law when he said that corporations had no right to exist without public approval, he stated an opinion. His opinion seems to be in accordance with the text of the constitution to which you referred, as if it were a mistake on his part. So come up with another reason.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday September 30 2016, @05:05PM
What I'd like to see, as a matter of policy: The companies that are now doing business with and in Afghanistan and Iraq who were unable to before 2003 must pay the entire cost of the wars there, including reparations to the families of deceased soldiers and providing funding for the VA to aid the veterans of those wars. This measure would particularly hit oil companies like Exxon, as it should.
So that will be $2.5 trillion, please. We do that, plus make the Pentagon locate the $8.5 trillion it can't account for, and we'd be able to cut the national debt in half.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 30 2016, @05:56PM
Well hell, this one is right up my wheelhouse! I've actually been on the receiving end of one of these citizen suits over this very issue. Not personally, of course, but as the env compliance guy who got to clean up the mess.
It's a bit of an odd complaint. It's a pretty tenuous link to go from being in violation of their Stormwater permit because they didn't evaluate their controls against new flood maps to the whole science coverup thing. Maybe they're just trying to get stuff on the record on that front...
Anyway, if anyone has questions you've got an actual expert right here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @09:53PM
How does this actually work? Under what grounds or jurisdiction can they be sued?
For example, can somebody sue me for driving a car and contributing to global warming? If not, then where is the hard line (or fuzzy line, as the case may be) between an individual's action being immune and a vast corporation being theoretically liable?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:23AM
These environmental laws that allow private lawsuits apply to businesses and municipalities. So basically, cities and counties also need to follow their Stormwater permit and have controls in place, etc.
In a municipality's case a required control would be making it illegal to dump hazardous waste in the storm drain (and enforcing that law). The private citizen would then be liable for breaking that law.
In this example, if the city wasn't enforcing that law then you could sue them just like Exxon. You couldn't sue the guy dumping the waste. (unless he was a business)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @06:11PM
Energy!
Momentum!
CPT!
Lepton number!
Baryon number!