Officials target utility company in $50 billion lawsuit over long-standing, harmful practice: 'Histo

[rangerrebew]

Officials target utility company in $50 billion lawsuit over long-standing, harmful practice: 'Historic and ongoing deception campaigns'
Story by Robert English • 2h •


According to experts, this is the first instance where a utility company is named in a lawsuit like this.
The largest natural gas utility company in Oregon is being sued by the state for misleading customers about the effects of climate change.

The suit is the first to be filed against a utility company for climate-related deception, as The New York Times reported.

What's happening?
NW Natural has been named by state officials in a $50 billion lawsuit against companies for climate-related deception and contribution to climate change.
 
The lawsuit claims that NW Natural, in addition to other companies that include Exxon and Shell, knowingly sold dirty energy products, like natural gas and oil, to customers while covering up and downplaying the adverse effects the products have on the environment. These companies are named as being complicit in a 2021 heat wave that killed at least 69 people, per the Times, and up to 72, per KOIN.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/officials-target-utility-company-in-50-billion-lawsuit-over-long-standing-harmful-practice-historic-and-ongoing-deception-campaigns/ar-AA1t09Sl?ocid=anaheim-ntp-feeds&cvid=108614e0cd624f81b104350604d82977&ei=54

[Smokin Joe]

I hope this suit goes down in flames.

With prejudice.

It isn't as if the customers who purchased and used the products (not since AlGOre, anyway) have been ignorant of the alleged climate effects of burning anything.
Yet the customers aren't getting sued? Only the providers of an in-demand product that Oregon would have folded up and blown away without.

No one did anything to anyone they were not cognizant of and not a participant in.
Anthropogenic global warming has not been proven to have any significant effect, globally.
Messing with the data sets doesn't count, and that's been done.

As for how much CO2 affects the atmosphere and global temperatures, well, that is NOT "sttled science", and remains in debate. If the wild-eyed postualtions of the AGW set prove to be wrong, are they going to give the money back?