“Exxon Mobil launched a legal counterattack Monday against seven cities in California that want state courts to force the oil company to pay for infrastructure improvements to help them adapt to climate change.
The oil giant argued that it and other Texas-based energy firms have become the target of a “conspiracy” among liberal state attorneys general and other officials seeking to blame it for driving up emissions that are causing the earth’s temperature to rise.
“ExxonMobil finds itself directly in that conspiracy’s crosshairs,” the company’s attorneys explained in legal documents filed in a Texas state district court Monday night.
“Even though it has long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change, supported the Paris climate accords, and backed a revenue-neutral carbon tax, ExxonMobil has nevertheless been targeted by state and local governments for pretextual investigations and litigation intended to cleanse the public square of alternative viewpoints,” Exxon argued.”
Personally, I hope that our friendly “professional nutcase” Bill McKibben gets some fallout for this. Here’s Bill trying to shut down a gas station:
h/t to WUWT commenter “TA”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You can participate. Anyone who has bought bonds from one of the cities participating in the lawsuit, and perhaps even if one of your funds has done so, can sue the city for fraud.
In the lawsuits against EXXON, they claim there will likely be all sorts of damages to their city from global warming, yet in the bond offerings, they say they have no idea what will happen.
For example, here’s Oakland:
“The city is unable to predict when … sea rise or other impacts of climate change could occur, when they may occur, or if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the city or local economy.”
Yet when suing EXXON,
“Global warming has caused, and continues to cause accelerated sea level rise in San Francisco Bay and the adjacent ocean with severe, potentially catastrophic consequences for Oakland.”
“By 2050, a ‘100 year flood’ in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur… once every 2.3 yrs…by 2100… almost once per week.”
Source Powerlineblog.com
You can’t placate hate – you’d think Exxon would have figured that out by now.
Although, I think also they’re simultaneously trying to exploit the issue to their own gain .
Exxon is fighting back in a lawsuit filed against them by 7 California cities. Exxon has accused them of defrauding investors over the last 27yrs on $8 BILLION of infrastructure bonds used in flood prone areas! That’ll get their attention. Of course the mayor of Imperial Beach (south of san diego) says Exxon is just bullying them. lol.
The only question in my mind is did Bill drive to the servo?
Just read the whole 61 pages of the disposition and Exxon has got the crooks bang to rights for defrauding their stockholders. Blood
The Decurity and Exchange Commisdion has to demand all these cities and other Calif bond issuers amend their issue statements and any new bonds must deal with this now.
Check Mate
Security
Exxon has nothing to be ashamed of. They dont extract the oil/gas and burn it themselves for fun. The burning is done by ordinary peoble who likes the benefit of the warmth and electricity the burning provides.
Even if it would not happen, it would be fun if Exxon stopped all operations in Ca, becuse they apparently don’t want it.
I am not sure about that. California has lots of cars. That is lots of revenue to lose.
so now New York is suing them too ?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/new-york-city-lawsuit-fossil-fuel-companies-1.4482073
Ayup, definitely time to stop selling ANY and EVERY fossil fuel based energy to New York City.
The city that would need more than half the land area of Long Island to power it through Solar Panel Power.
Oil Companies Should Stop Supplying New York City
By cutting off Oil to NYC is will provide the needed motivation for either 1) liberals grow up and start living in the real world or 2) they turn to their friends in the Sierra Club and Rockefeller Foundation to provide a viable alternative. In reality, this war on climate change is nothing more than the Tobacco Settlement 2.0. Liberal organization can’t survive on their own, they require looting of the productive sectors of our economy. Liberals depend upon taxes, donations, contributions, fundraising and lawsuits. They reject the Free Market, so they don’t strive to discover commercially viable solutions to today’s problems, they rely on public campaigns to support looting those industries that actually produce something.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/oil-companies-should-stop-supplying-new-york-city/
Many Thanks for all of the interesting comments. I am only noting here that I found this link from Robert Turner to be helpful to me on first glance. http://pages.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/absorption_lecture.pdf
The cities are in denial about their own incompetence and are hoping to use tax payers money to flush out some cash .What’s the down side ? Only that the cities pension fund bombs are about to disintegrate and their mismanagement of public funds are going to be exposed .Desperate times . Maybe they budgeted carbon tax money a little to generously like they did their expected pension investment returns .
Walk the talk suing cities, tell voters you are going to help set the worlds temperature by banning fossil fuels then call an election on it . Adios idiots !