Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Exxon cleared in climate change case

Journal by khallow
The drama that started a few years back has finally resolved.

New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon mislead shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.

“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Judge Barry Ostrager of the trial-level state Supreme Court wrote in his ruling.

[...]

The case was dismissed “with prejudice,” which means that “this case cannot be tried again on these facts in New York,” Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee said. He added that it could go to New York State Appellate Court and a federal case would be “very unlikely” and “ill-fated.”

What was particularly pernicious about the original case was that it happened merely because Exxon had some researchers look into the matter decades ago. There was no illegal or fraudulent activity in the first place. It didn't matter to the plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney General of New York that the research in question was inconclusive.

This is not the first time that merely looking for problems from a business's activities or products generates liability. But it would establish a precedent that the act of merely looking, even if one doesn't find anything, creates liability.

Exxon cleared in climate change case | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 15 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:55PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:55PM (#931144)

    ExxonMobil is in the business of producing energy, and this is a securities fraud case, not a climate change case.”

    So they couldn't prove the investors were defrauded because they made a pile of money and because this case is not about Exxon's liabilities for the damage they caused. They have teams of lawyers who make sure these types of reports and actions don't increase liability.

    Clueless khallow, posting a journal entry that doesn't say what he thinks it said. There are plenty of "legal" things which are wrong, or are you a fan of the mass surveillance machine se have constructed to monitor every person? Are you a fan of droning US citizens?

    "Pernicious" laaaaawl

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday December 12 2019, @12:00AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) on Thursday December 12 2019, @12:00AM (#931269) Journal

      So they couldn't prove the investors were defrauded because they made a pile of money and because this case is not about Exxon's liabilities for the damage they caused. They have teams of lawyers who make sure these types of reports and actions don't increase liability.

      If it had been about "Exxon's liabilities for the damage they caused", it would have been dismissed even earlier. You have to show the damages first and have standing to make the law suit.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 11 2019, @06:31PM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday December 11 2019, @06:31PM (#931162) Journal

    Sorry, khallow, just because Exxon didn't loose this case, that does not mean they are going to start paying your shill wages again!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:49PM (4 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:49PM (#931197) Journal

      It's illegal to lie to shareholders.

      Lying to the public, about the very fate of the planet, totally fine!

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday December 12 2019, @12:37AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) on Thursday December 12 2019, @12:37AM (#931280) Journal
        Since when has Exxon done that? And should journalists and scientists be held to the same legal standard?

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 12 2019, @04:35PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 12 2019, @04:35PM (#931447) Journal

          Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago [scientificamerican.com]

          ...the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.\

          ...

          By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @03:35AM

            by khallow (3766) on Friday December 13 2019, @03:35AM (#931621) Journal
            This is tiresome. Just because a business investigates something doesn't mean that they're hiding anything. The story doesn't actually demonstrate that global warming is as serious as claimed or that the warnings above were at all serious. After all, consider the money quote:

            He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

            That was in 1978. We've blow past that Chicken Little prediction by 40 years. What's to lie about when the predictions were wrong?

            By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty.

            It's amazing how Exxon's lobbying failwaves prevents countries from signing treaties hostile to their interests. It's really amazing how powerful Exxon is here.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12 2019, @05:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12 2019, @05:28AM (#931325)

        Those who piled up a skyscraper of bullshit, should not throw patties around.

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday December 12 2019, @06:35PM (4 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday December 12 2019, @06:35PM (#931474) Journal

    Did they terminate the drunken captain's command?

    I always wondered, is it better for the planet to burn the oil or to spill it? What do you think? I mean, everybody still gets paid, so what's the big deal?

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

    • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday December 13 2019, @12:37AM (3 children)

      by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday December 13 2019, @12:37AM (#931578)

      I always wondered, is it better for the planet to burn the oil or to spill it? What do you think?

      I think it's better to burn it. Long-chain hydrocarbons have various toxic effects such that you don't want to be near them. Burning them breaks them down into smaller molecules, which are generally more friendly to life. (see also the catalytic converter)

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2019, @01:36AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2019, @01:36AM (#931595)

        Or you ignore the badly set up choices and go with: leave it in the ground, or turn it into industrial products. Thst might involve some amount of byproduct to burn, but burning should be the last option. Spilling isn't an option, it is an accident.

        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday December 13 2019, @03:38AM

          by khallow (3766) on Friday December 13 2019, @03:38AM (#931623) Journal
          Why should it be the "last option" rather than "leaving it in the ground"? As I see it, humanity has a lot of problems bigger than climate change that burning fossil fuels can and does help fix.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday December 13 2019, @05:12PM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday December 13 2019, @05:12PM (#931760) Journal

          Spilling isn't an option, it is an accident.

          No, that would imply that it's unavoidable, most often it's negligence and corruption

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(1)