Exxon Climate Science Probe Expands as New York Gains Allies

[Bill Cipher]

From BNA

Mar 30 2016 13:47:59

•Massachusetts joins New York in investigating Exxon Mobil
 •Broader coalition of states formed to fight climate change
 
By Tiffany Kary and Meenal Vamburkar
 (Bloomberg) --
Massachusetts became the latest state investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. misled investors and the public about how climate change may affect its business.
 
News of the state's probe came as part of a larger announcement on Tuesday by attorneys general from California to New York who are joining forces to fight global warming and look into whether companies have understated its effects. The group of 17 states and territories may jointly investigate the climate change disclosures of individual oil and natural gas companies, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
 
Any resulting litigation could resemble that brought by the Justice Department against cigarette makers in 1999, said Sharon Eubanks, who served as the U.S.'s lead lawyer in that case, and now works in private practice with Bordas & Bordas.
 
"There are a lot of similarities between federal tobacco litigation and activities we know Exxon has engaged in at this point," Eubanks said in a phone interview. The government would most likely try to bring civil racketeering claims, attempting to show that individuals at Exxon funded front groups to undermine science, or defrauded investors by making business decisions based on what it knew, but didn't disclose, about climate change, she said.
 
Massachusetts joins New York in looking into whether Exxon's climate-change disclosures were misleading. New York's probe has been active since at least November, when Schneiderman's office subpoenaed Exxon documents including communications with trade groups. The group formed Tuesday is part of an even broader coalition of 25 states, cities and counties defending President Barack Obama's plan to cut emissions from U.S. power plants and generally fighting for reductions in greenhouse-gas pollution.
 
'Politically Motivated'
 
Suzanne McCarron, Exxon's vice president of public and government affairs, described climate-change allegations leveled against the company as "politically motivated and based on discredited reporting funded by activist organizations." The company is "assessing all legal options," she said in an e-mailed statement.
 
New York's investigation followed articles by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times alleging Exxon's scientists discovered evidence that man-made emissions were changing the climate as far back as 1977.
 
In a series of blog posts last year on a website known as "ExxonMobil Perspectives," the company's then-General Counsel Kenneth Cohen characterized the reports as products of "anti-oil and gas activists" who "cherry-picked documents" to distort the Irving, Texas-based company's treatment of climate research.
 
More States
 
"With more states jumping on board, these investigations are sure to generate some serious waves," May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, an environmental advocacy group, said in an e-mailed statement. "We'll be looking for the Department of Justice and many more cities and states to get involved."
 
Attorneys general William Sorrell of Vermont, George Jepsen of Connecticut, Brian E. Frosh of Maryland and Mark Herring of Virginia were among those in New York on Tuesday for the announcement of the climate change coalition.
 
"With gridlock and dysfunction gripping Washington, it is up to the states to lead on the generation-defining issue of climate change," Schneiderman said in the statement. "Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives, such as investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions."
 
In California, state senators are considering a bill that would extend the statute of limitations on a law that prohibits companies from engaging in deceptive or misleading advertising to 30 years from four years. The legislation must be taken up in committee before it can head to a floor vote.
 
"Our environment and economy face grave risks from climate change, including unprecedented heat and wildfires, severe drought and sea level rise," the bill's author, Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica, said in a statement. "This legislation will give law enforcement the tools to hold companies accountable for hiding evidence of their products' devastating impacts and for their role in delaying action to address this crisis."

--With assistance from Joe Carroll and Michael B. Marois.

To contact the reporters on this story:
 Tiffany Kary in New York at tkary@bloomberg.net;
 Meenal Vamburkar in New York at mvamburkar@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
 David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net;
 David Marino at dmarino4@bloomberg.net
 Lynn Doan, Richard Stubbe
 
Exxon Climate Science Probe Expands as New York Gains Allies (1)
BN — Mar 30 2016 13:47:59

[sinkspur]

This is absolutely the silliest damned thing I've read about in a long time.  Climate change is not a "science," it's a SWAG based on computer models.

In other words, this is the equivalent of the Weather Channel suing the local 7-11 because the owner took issue with its weather forecasts.

[Bill Cipher]

This is absolutely the silliest damned thing I've read about in a long time.  Climate change is not a "science," it's a SWAG based on computer models.

In other words, this is the equivalent of the Weather Channel suing the local 7-11 because the owner took issue with its weather forecasts.

Silly as it may be, it should be taken seriously.  Given how easy it can be to nail a public company for misrepresentations to investors under the securities laws, and there are two sets:  federal and state, it should be taken seriously.  Even if the science is bogus and the claims ludicrous, if a jury (or judge) were to decide that Exxon should have given its investors more information, then it could be held liable for securities fraud.

[sinkspur]

Silly as it may be, it should be taken seriously.  Given how easy it can be to nail a public company for misrepresentations to investors under the securities laws, and there are two sets:  federal and state, it should be taken seriously.  Even if the science is bogus and the claims ludicrous, if a jury (or judge) were to decide that Exxon should have given its investors more information, then it could be held liable for securities fraud.

Unlike tobacco, who makes the final determination that climate change is man-caused and therefore attributable to a company like Exxon/Mobil?  There was a consensus that the tar in tobacco caused cancer, as well as the lungs of dead smokers as evidence.  There is some dispute as to whether or not climate change is even happening in the last 14 years, to say nothing of what the cause of it would be.

This is nothing but an excuse for states to milk successful businesses for some cash.  Exxon has the money to keep these clowns tied up in court for a very long time.

[Bill Cipher]

Unlike tobacco, who makes the final determination that climate change is man-caused and therefore attributable to a company like Exxon/Mobil?  There was a consensus that the tar in tobacco caused cancer, as well as the lungs of dead smokers as evidence.  There is some dispute as to whether or not climate change is even happening in the last 14 years, to say nothing of what the cause of it would be.

This is nothing but an excuse for states to milk successful businesses for some cash.  Exxon has the money to keep these clowns tied up in court for a very long time.

I agree.  But no doubt the argument will be something like "even if there is no consensus, Exxon had a duty to its shareholders to inform them of the people who said climate change was happening and to tell the shareholders what the effect on its business would be if those people were correct; no matter how incorrect those people may actually turn out to be."

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is the future IMO.

First it will be climate science. Then it will be white privilege, male privilege etc.

Just sue your way to the truth.

[Smokin Joe]

Because some judge somewhere and a pile of ambulance chasers will be qualified to rule on whether Anthropogenic global warming is taking place when scientists do not agree on the effect, if any of humans on climate, and said legal eagles will be qualified to rule on the extent,  if any of such effect, and further be qualified to determine IF such effects have, in fact, been deleterious to human survival on any basis (humans tend to thrive in warmer periods, historically), and what effect any such effect may have had on the quality of investments made in Exxon/Mobil.

The oil and gas sector took one heck of a dip when production (especially reserve capacity) reached a level where the market demand was sated, and the price of oil crashed, bringing down stock prices in the entire sector. The investors who thought (against any historical precedent) that the boom would never end and who got bit are now trying to take their self-imposed butthurt out on the deepest pockets they can find, and New York, who imposed a fraccing ban and didn't get the benefits of the boom now wants money anyway.

There will come a time when it is appropriate to pull the breakers, close the valves, and shut down the pipelines to places which refuse to produce their own energy and seek to stop others from producing theirs.

[Smokin Joe]

This is the future IMO.

First it will be climate science. Then it will be white privilege, male privilege etc.

Just sue your way to the truth.

All the more reason to stop this nonsense here.

[Free Vulcan]

Exxon should file a RICO suit against these states, among other things.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree.  But no doubt the argument will be something like "even if there is no consensus, Exxon had a duty to its shareholders to inform them of the people who said climate change was happening and to tell the shareholders what the effect on its business would be if those people were correct; no matter how incorrect those people may actually turn out to be."

It is everywhere, like a new religion, permeating everything from textbooks to universities to pop media and culture. It is almost amusing that the same people who find technology so good, if not essential to their quality of life, don't seem to understand that you have to power it somehow, and that just isn't going to come from unicorn farts, capturing rainbows, solar panels, windmills, and standing around wishing really, really, hard.

How the plaintiffs can even contend that the whole Global Warming (hoax) hasn't received extensive enough dissemination is beyond me. It's like suing a company that sells lighters for not specifying that fire is hot at this point. Any risk should be understood from common knowledge, whether that knowledge is correct or not.

[Fishrrman]

Let the climate change fools probe all they want.

In the meantime, I intend to put as many miles on the Harley as I can and emit as much carbon dioxide as humanly possible...  ;)

[Smokin Joe]

Let the climate change fools probe all they want.

In the meantime, I intend to put as many miles on the Harley as I can and emit as much carbon dioxide as humanly possible...  ;)

Roger that!

[Free Vulcan]

All the more reason to stop this nonsense here.

And hey Smokin' - welcome!

[Smokin Joe]

Thanks!