Guest essay by Eric Worrall
New York University Law Professor Richard Epstein thinks political attempts to sue oil companies like Exxon are doomed, thanks to the fossil fuel hypocrisy of the plaintiffs.
‘Cross Examination Is Going To Be Brutal’: NYU Law Prof Says Climate Change Litigation Is A Loser
POST WRITTEN BY
Karen Kidd
California officials who made dire climate change predictions about their localities’ futures in litigation against energy companies, but not in bond offerings, probably know by now their litigation is doomed, a New York University law professor said during a recent interview.
“My guess is they know they’re going to lose those lawsuits,” Richard Epstein, who also is director of NYU’s Classical Liberal Institute, told Legal Newsline. “I certainly believe they will.”
…
Those same fossil fuels also help drive the state’s economy, the sixth-largest in the world, Epstein and others say.
…
If Professor Epstein is right, why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And why has the California AG sued the Trump Administration more than 25 times? It’s because he can (using my money), because it gets him good press in this state, and because it makes him fell good to be saving the world from the POTUS (or, at least, trying).
Yes, wouldn’t it be terrible if America were great again, and the rest of the free world benefit from America’s economic strength?
SARC/
???
Since, that is the direction America is heading, and the world is benefiting; just what is the sarcasm?
Perhaps, the sarcasm is anti-Trump puffery?
ATheoK,
The sarcasm is the “terrible” part.
In as few words as possible
Deep Pockets
In a few more words…
Because They believe the Oil companies are supposed to Kowtow to their demands and pay to settle instead of fight the allegations.
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/02/20/politics/wind-industry-group-sues-lepage-over-new-turbine-moratorium/
Now if was his own money at stack you really seen if his concern is real .
Maybe these officials should have at least a small monetary liability to keep them in a sensible zone. If an AG makes a totally losable case out of the blocks, surely the defendant can sue the government for a pile? I’d get Epstein on the payroll. There aren’t a lot of these non-post normal legal beagles left.
Perhaps we should ban lawyers from becoming politicians….
but… would there be enough people prepared to stoop so low… and have daily relations with the media?
Or put a limit on their numbers, say no more than 10% of the House or Senate.
Absolutely NOT! Nowhere else can we find a supply of people who get degrees in, and practice actively, lying [they like to call it representing] so well. This is a necessary attribute for any politician. We NEED a continuing supply of liars!! No one else can get elected. — (cynical – perhaps)
@Komrade Kuma
Such a graphic picture you paint.
I certainly would want to stoop so low and have daily relations with the media or the AG’s for that matter
Need a website setup to track how much money is spent ‘Virtual Signaling’
Virtue Signaling, not “Virtual”.
One could say virtue signaling is kind of like “virtual” virtue. 😉
Q “why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?”
A Grouptalk, i.e. the tribal imbeciles involved talk, talk, talk the talk talk talk and sooner or later, when the ‘conversation’ reaches that stage of awkward silence think they have to do some walking. They don’t figure that their conversation was moronic in the first place so the actions are even more stupid.
Progressives aren’t very bright, and it clearly never occurred to the City officials to check that the story they were telling to the court was consistent with what they were saying to bondholders. Huge blunder.
the LIV’s just read that the AG is suing, and that is all you need to do to have them on board. They do not follow up and see who wins, and who loses. The act is all that is needed, seen this many times. You have to point out the failure to them, and then they are flabbergasted that their meme is broken:-)))
Yep. I assumed that last question was completely rhetorical.
Why? Because some taxpayers like them. Probably enough to win elections.
…and it’s not their money….they look at it as great theatrics
Why? Isn’t it obvious? Because they can?
And they find lawyers who are willing to be paid very well to press the lawsuits.
Their declarations in the bond offerings directly contradict the claims in these lawsuits.
The question is, which lawsuit will be more painful to lose. This suit against the oil companies, or the suit that is going to be filed by the purchasers of those bonds demanding the interest rates be adjusted and penalties for lying applied?
If there are any smart people in these governments, they are telling the AGs to abandon the suits against the oil companies before any under oath depositions can be taken. Such oaths can and will be used as evidence in any case regarding the bonds.
That is certainly the logical position, but when has logic ever influences the eco-zealots and eco-goldminers pushing the scam?
From the linked article:
The probem will come if any of the bond holders decides to sue. IIRC, there’s a rule that says you can’t say two different things in two different courtrooms.
First the gov’t takes contradictory stands all the time and gets away with it. Second, it won’t get to the bond suit. Whomever, wrote the bond definition will not want to risk getting sued or hit w/charges of fraud or perjury. They will testify there assessment was valid, thus invalidating the climate lawsuit.
I forgot, all court filings are by definition, under oath. If they have already filed papers on this suit, they’re dead.
They don’t care. “They” aren’t going to be sued, the taxpayers are.
@John B
The office holders may or may not be protected from the investors by sovereign immunity, but I bet there are state ethics laws that would leave them hanging out to dry.
Oh gosh !!
Because there is absolutely no history of leftists lying under oath and not being punished.
“why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?”
That’s easy, they aren’t spending their own money.
They get the publicity, someone else picks up the tab.
Don’t you just love politics?
This. ^^^^^^
PLUS – Not only are they spending public money, Tom Steyer is giving all of these guys private cash in the guise of “campaign contributions” in exchange for them doing it.
You know how “campaign contributions” are spent, right? You put your wife, your kids, and your gay partner if you want on as campaign staff each with a salary of $1,000,000.00 a year. And when all the money is gone, good old Steyer will fill the kitty back up again.
“Tom Steyer is giving all of these guys private cash in the guise of “campaign contributions” in exchange for them doing it.”
Steyer is a carbon trading billionaire like Lord Stern’s $100 billion hedge fund sugar daddy Jeremy Grantham. They make a fortune from global warming fraud.
They don’t care, they can always float a new bond offering to make up the shortfall.
I like “the bond offerings are fraudulent” aspect.
I want to see someone one sue Hansen’s grandkids for playing games on their phones/computers after they filed suit stating CO2 and fossil fuels are destroying the planet. If they truly believe that then they wouldn’t be playing games and watching non-educational TV. I would ask that they be banned from both until 18 by court order. They would have to argue the little fossil fuel they use for non-existential items wasn’t significant while also stating the insignificant amount everyone else uses is.
It was predicted quite a while ago by late Michael Crichton in his novel ” The State of Fear”.
One famous American physician said in 1930’s that medicine is 90 percent of common sense and 10 percent of special knowledge. Same applies to any other real science.
This is actually the book that started my investigation into the scam that is global warming, er, climate change.
“Common sense ain’t common”, Will Rogers
I have heard that a curse is “May you be in the right in a legal dispute”. The process itself is intended as punishment, even if the lawsuit goes nowhere.
The law suits are all conspicuous virtue signalling.
Why suits that they can’t win? They win by just filing them. It’s using the court system for harassment. Unless you have deep pockets you can be destroyed financially. Besides it’s virtue signaling to other’s in the nomenklatura. Given the liberal bent of the leftist judges they’re easy to file when they should be laughed out of courts and who knows what a stacked jury of technically ignorant liberals might do?
Excuse meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The oil companies have veryyyyyyyyyyyyy deep pockets
But not limitless. Oil companies are very cognizant about the bottom line, and losing $10 million in legal fees is a major price to pay for what will at-best result in the status quo.
Except that it’s the oil company’s money and must be accounted to at the AGM. It’s not the AG’s money and governments don’t really care about wasting taxpayers money.
It won’t become an election issue because the electorate won’t care that your opponent wasted money suing oil companies.
………..veryyyyyyyyyyyy deep pockets..
The Oil Companies’ deep pockets are connected by a pipeline to Your and My pockets…via the gas pump.
“If Professor Epstein is right, why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?”
It’s the same reasons that we are still wasting public money on the ‘trump/russia collusion’ garbage:
They want to believe that they must be right because if they are wrong, their political identity is exposed for the foolishness it embodies.
An Ecuador tribe hired a NY legal firm to fight Chevron for oil damage to their land. Unfortunately the legal team thought they could get away with lying and dirty tricks just like environmentalists and climate modellers.
“U.S. top court hands Chevron victory in Ecuador pollution case
While not disputing that pollution occurred, San Ramon, California-based Chevron has said it is not liable and that Donziger and his associates orchestrated the writing of a key environmental report and bribed the presiding judge in Ecuador.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-chevron/u-s-top-court-hands-chevron-victory-in-ecuador-pollution-case-idUSKBN19A1V4
The damage occurred long after Chevron had left the site.
Chevron left the site because the government kicked them out so that the government could keep all the profits for itself.
That Chevron was not responsible was easy to prove.
yep. In actual fact, the Government owned oil company was the one that had done all the environmental damage that they accused Chevron of causing.
The best part was when the Judge in the Peruvian case, where the hoaxsters had won, admitted that his decision was written by Donziger and his pals, that he had taken a big payment in exchange for letting them write it, and that not only had he never read it himself, he didn’t even understand some of the language and terminology used in it.
The world court in the Hague should issue an arrest warrant and Interpol should enforce it and extradite Donziger for racketeering. Lawyers shouldnt be allowed to get away with this. The world has become lawless.
I’ve always said that the primary purpose of the legal system is to enrich lawyers.
Justice, when it happens, is just a by-product.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2017/06/20/chevrons-and-the-rule-of-laws-triumph-the-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-donzigers-appeal/#741b65ea37ac
[excerpt]
Meanwhile, Donziger has desperately tried to enforce the corrupt Ecuadorean judgement in other countries. [Chevron has no assets in Ecuador, so Donziger could not enforce it there.] In January 2017, an Ontario court rejected an attempt to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Canada Limited, a totally separate legal entity that was not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit and not named in the judgment. [Donziger evidently clings to the hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will overturn the Ontario ruling by flouting centuries of corporate law precedents.] Attorneys-General offices in Argentina and Brazil issued opinions in April 2016 and May 2015, respectively, to their courts recommending against recognition of the Ecuadorian judgment in those countries because (in the words of Brazil’s Deputy Prosecutor General) it was “issued in an irregular manner, especially under deplorable acts of corruption.”
[end of excerpt]
I am not surprised that Donziger tried to get compensation from Chevron in Canada.
The justice system in Canada is utterly corrupted. It is hamstrung by deceit and delay tactics, which are encouraged by the courts to the benefit of the “law business” and the detriment of the public.
Perjury and Fraud Upon the Court is rarely discouraged, and so has become the standard tactic to deceive the judiciary and delay proceedings. Rules of evidence are routinely ignored and false allegations are accepted by judges as evidence and form the basis of their rulings.
The selection of judges in Canada is reportedly among the least transparent in the developed world, and judicial appointments can be made to reward political party fundraisers and other favorites.
Some of my colleagues are convinced that judges are routinely “bought” in big-money legal cases, as was the case against Chevron in Ecuador where the judge was bribed to falsify the judgment. I have no opinion on this point in Canada, but do observe that the entire law business in Canada is remarkably incompetent, and corruption (in addition to incompetence) may be one of the contributing factors.
Rule of Law is a shambles in Canada. The lesson here is “sort out your problems outside the court system”.
Canada Is Corrupt When it Comes to Choosing Judges
05/05/2014 01:08 EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/canada-judicial-appointments_b_5264567.html
Epstein didn’t mention the main reason cross examination is going to be brutal : the plaintiffs have to demonstrate conclusively that 1) the country had reasonable or practical alternatives to the energy sources supplied by the defendents and that somehow the defendents blocked these fictitious energy sources from being used – namely, what did the plaintiff govts do in all this? Secondly, the plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that the energy sources supplied by the companies have actually caused harm, not in the speculative future, but at this time, and conclusively. And if they have, what alternative was available that could have avoided that?
I doubt that’s true. My guess, if they decide to push on, is they’ll try to make the case on strict liability grounds. No matter how careful defendants were, no matter that there was no alternative energy sources, no matter if defendants were even entirely ignorant of the alleged harm, the existence of the harm flowed directly from defendant’s actions. It will at least provide entertainment. Excuse me while I check my pantry for pop-corn…
It seems to me the most obvious defense would be that oil companies are accused of knowing of GW danger at a time when a coming ice age was the main concern, as witnessed in 1971 by Obama’s own adviser. –AGF
Cross exam: “If the federal government had mandated on Exxon’s advice that every gas pump display a label: ‘internal combustion in your engine could be hazardous to your future health,’ would that have deterred you 30 years ago, or would it deter you today, from filling your tank? Did you fill your tank in the past week? You did? Do you blame this lapse of judgement on Exxon?”
first question objected. “if” irrelevant.
others: “no, I stopped.”
last question:
“I blame Exxon on failing to tell me the hazard it knew about. Exxon Knew. I build all my way of life on the lie (by omission) of Exxon, now I have to change it, which is much more difficult, costly and time consuming that if I had build it that way from the very start. “
I relish those lawsuits. Exxon will get to destroy AGW once and for all in a court of law.
Unfortunately what will happen is that the state will present evidence that the various “scientific” bodies, all say that AGW is real and it is dangerous. Then the court will just stipulate that it can’t disagree with the experts and accept that position. There will be no cross examination of the the AGW sc@m.
… why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?
– Two words – Virtue Signalling. All to the good when it’s on somebody else’s dime.
Law Professor is right! I suspect the real reason behind deBlasio’s fake law suits is extortion. In this case the Oil Companies sited (not those with offices in NYC) in the fake suits hold millions to a few billions in NYC bonds. deBlasio’s scheme is to 1) deny payout on the current bonds and cancel them, 2) re-issue bonds at substantially higher prices (NYC Climate Taxes), longer terms and lower payout interest.
If So Facto: Book’m Dan-O.
“Virtue Signalling”–A great description of compulsive behaviour.
Bob
I don’t trust the USA legal system is this respect.
We are talking of a system that inflict punitive damage to MacDonald for not telling that hot coffee they sell is hot, indeed, so you shouldn’t take the lid off!
Plaintiffs have to demonstrate conclusively that oil companies have big pockets (check), that they sold gas to the plaintiff (check), and that they lured the plaintiff into believing the practice was safe just by failing to mention some effect they were aware of, that, if the plaintiff knew, would had taken into consideration and changed his behavior (so the simple failing to mention hurted the plaintiff).
Pretty much the same rationale as this lawsuit against Apple for failing to tell customers that they managed the battery, maybe the way the thought the best, but without telling the customer.
Check or not, that is the question. The whole “exxon knew” campaign was a way to have jury members ready to accept the claim.
And it would very imprudent to think the case is easy win.
“If Professor Epstein is right, why are county and state bodies continuing to waste public money pursuing lawsuits they know they cannot win?” Because they can’t get their citizens to pay more taxes, so they’re left with the alternative of trying to extort others with money and a less attractive public relations profile. You don’t actually expect them to reduce spending, do you?
So far no one has actually gone to court…. nor do I believe they ever will. My guess is the charges will be dropped and the plaintiffs will claim “pressure from big oil and their overwhelming available assets to litigate”. The oil companies won’t take it any further just like they’ve done so far.
Except Exxon filed suit against all the lawyers involved in Texas court individually (not in their official capacities). They intend to inflict as much process damage to the individuals as they were hoping to inflict on Exxon.
There’s a thing called ‘abuse of process.’ It provides, if proven, for huge damages and penalties against the original plaintiff. IIRR, Mark Steyn has a similar countersuit going against some numpty whose name I can’t remember.
Man, are you ever forgetful…
Climate lawsuits are mere episodes of posturing by intellectually-challenged, immature brats, wasting time, resources, and money.
Harsh, perhaps, but I say this as a progressive-minded person, formerly brainwashed by the CO2 catastrophism narrative.
Oh, I guess I forgot to consider that employment prospects for upper-tier lawyers improve with such episodes. Job creation? — there are better ways.
Why are they pressing forward with these lawsuits? Two words: “public money”.
The politicians and lawyers are not spending THEIR money, but public money.
The politicians looks at this as a way to pad their resumes, and possibly jump start a political campaign. That was the apparent motivation of the NYC Prosecutor when he wanted to look into “Exxon Knew”
The lawyers are getting paid, so are encouraging it.
But it is public money. The lawyers and politicians have no skin in this game..
It would be interesting if Chevron were to buy bonds from these same states and acquire standing to sue them for federal securities violations, based on false statements in the prospectus. They could only defend one claim by refuting the other.
Do I hear class-action lawsuit from the bond investors yet?
Why? because even though their lawyers know they will lose they want to submit a big bill. Lawyer integrity, lawyers social conscience at work.
Contingency fee. They don’t collect if they don’t win. Poor decision on the law firms’ part.
I think these lawsuits were just virtue signalling, but Exxon and others called the bluff.
Which is funny as heck, because the standards of evidence in court is a LOT higher than et standards of ‘evidence;’ in green propaganda.
“Mr HighUpPersonInExxon, is it not true that your company evaluated the issue of Anthropogenic climate change years ago and knew exactly what its effects would be?”
“That is so.”
“And yet you failed to change policies or warn your shareholders of the adverse effects it would have in the environment and your stock price”
“Objection. Learned counsel is not posing a question, merely leading the jury”
“Objection sustained. Please ask direct questions”
“Why did you not change policies or inform your shareholders of the adverse effects it would have in the environment and your stock price”
“Objection. Learned counsel is posing a leading question again”
“Objection sustained. Please ask direct questions”
“When were you aware of the adverse effects Climate Change would have in the environment and your stock price?”
“Objection. Learned counsel is posing a leading question again”
“Objection sustained. Please ask direct questions”
“Were you aware of the adverse effects Climate Change …?”
“Objection. Learned counsel is n posing a leading question again”
“Objection sustained. Please ask direct questions”
“Did your research into Anthropogenic climate change reveal adverse effects to the environment and stock holders values”
“No”.
“Are you denying that Anthropogenic climate change has negative impacts on the environment, and that attempts to address it would lower your stock price?”
“No”
“Which – Anthropogenic climate change has negative impacts on the environment..?”
“No”
“No what?”
” Anthropogenic climate change has no negative impacts on the environment. Our research shows that it has no measurable impact on anything.”
“And what about the impact of renewable energy on the fossil fuel market?”
“Our research revealed that renewable energy would have minimal impact on the market for fossil fuel and would in all likelihood raise profits by raising the cost of energy over all.”
“Are you saying that despite the massive adoption of renewable energy the market for fossil fuel remains the same?”
“Yes”
“But isn’t the whole point or renewable energy to replace fossil fuel?”
“I cannot say what the point of renewable energy is: Perhaps you should ask its protagonists”.
“No further questions m’lud: ”
Defence attorney rises
“Would it be true to say that you carried out research both into the likely effects of anthropogenic climate change, and into the possible adoption of renewable energy, so called, as a mitigating technical strategy”
“It would”
“And this was done some years ago”
“It was”
“So that in general Exxon DID know the potential effects on man made climate change both on the environment and on the marketplace for fossil fuel”
“yes”.
“And yet you failed to act on these findings. Why?”
“Because the findings were that there would be negligible effects in either case¨.
“So the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change, as it is known would be negligible?”
“Anthropogenic Global Warming, yes, but non anthropogenic climate change is of course a historical fact and could have a considerable impact. We have for example strategies to cater for climate cooling and warming, but not to cater for Anthropogenic Global Warming”.
“And you further assert that the market for fossil fuel would remain unchanged or nearly so despite massive deployments of renewable energy”
“We do”
“How can that be?”
“Our assessment of the technologies showed that when the requirements for dispatchability were taken into account, and the energy involved in manufacturing and maintenance, the net contribution of renewable technologies to energy production was zero to slightly negative, depending.”
“I am sorry, but that sounds like you are saying that deployment of renewable energy has no effect at all, or indeed possibly means a slight increase in fossil fuel consumption”
“That is correct”.
Addresses the court
“So m’lud, the essence of the defence is not to deny that Exxon knew, nor to deny the validity of climate change, nor yet to even deny the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact we assert that Exxon knew perfectly well, years ago, that Anthropogenic climate change would be of negligible impact, and that no amount of renewable energy would result in a reduction in fossil fuel usage, so there was no environmental impact from fossil fuel usage, and no impact on the fossil fuel market. Indeed the only adverse environmental impact was from renewable technologies themselves”.
“It sounds like you are saying that the plaintiffs should be the defendants”
“You might say that: we couldn’t possibly comment, and it would not be in our shareholders interest to pursue a counter suit”.
Yeah, but you live on the hope of an even adequate judge.
On the other hand, you could have one of the judges from the Steyn/Mann “Hundred Year War” suit.
+97% and raise you 1.21 gigawatts
that would be 1.21 jiggawatts.
I think it’s more like 1.21 gigglewatts.
or lottalarfs