Comprehensive Opinion Piece on the ever shrinking lawsuits against Exxon.
On Tuesday, the progressive legal war on Exxon will head to trial in a case most notable for … how badly it has fizzled.
It started back in 2016, with “a move many are hailing as a ‘turning point,’ ” as EcoWatch proclaimed: 20 state attorneys general launching an “unprecedented, multi-state effort” to probe and prosecute the oil giant.
The central charge — seemingly bolstered by Pulitzer-nominated journalists: Exxon had for decades hidden “key climate science.”
This is a good summary of the trajectory.
The claim: Exxon had long known that consuming oil would cause global warming but hid the facts. In fact, the company for decades published findings closely matching mainstream science. No one has ever produced any evidence of a coverup.
Which is why Schneiderman (before the revelation of horrifying personal conduct ended his career) was forced to find a different rationale: Big Oil, he said, might be “overstating” its assets by “trillions,” by failing to account for potential future regulations that restrict fossil fuels.
Oops: The company had warned about the risks of new rules; that’s why a Securities and Exchange Commission probe cleared it of those charges.
And the case that now-AG Letitia James takes to trial Tuesday is a huge comedown from even that claim, charging that Exxon fraudulently used two sets of books to state the risks. The company says it merely releases different estimates for different purposes, with full disclosure.
The charge is not only a far cry from the original #ExxonKnew allegations, it’s also almost certain to fail. Putting the best face on this fact, climate-change warrior Andrew Revkin tweeted Wednesday: “Some lawsuits are fought for the win, some are fought for the documents. The NYS #exxonknew suit is far more likely to be the latter.”
This sums it up.
In fact, the entire thing has been a shameless exercise in prosecutorial abuse, from the outrageous harassment of nonprofits whose research the climate-crisis crew dislikes to the ethically dubious private funding of staff in the New York AG’s Office.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
why Stop at Exxon ? Next they will sue the car companies for selling co2 producing machines. Then the utilities for burning co2 producing coal and natural gas.
When the legal action collapses and is found out to be baseless, the outcome will likely not be reported by mainstream media or downplayed if it is reported. The initial assertion that Exxon knew will continue to be believed, even when shown to be false because the news was not published or made light of.
Humans have a bad habit of believing the first thing they are told until they find refuting evidence or become suspicious. If the refuting evidence is deliberately suppressed, they will believe that initial assertion until their dying day. Worse still, the lie will become intergenerational. For example, few realize that the Nazis were Socialists-calling them “right wing” is a flagrant lie that lets Socialism in general off the hook for their Nazi Socialist crimes against humanity. The big lie about the Nazis has been believed by most people for over 70 years.
If mainstream media are actually fair, unbiased and genuine, they would devote equal coverage for the dismissal of the case as what was reported during the entire saga. Thus, a front page headline for a front page headline. An editorial for an editorial. Big coverage for a couple of years for big coverage for a couple of years. Only fair.
Exxon has very deep pockets. Perhaps they will pay for huge ads, and report the ‘news’, pointing out how much taxpayer money was wasted, and the collusion in the AG offices with climate activists.
JRF in Pennsacola,
1. I never said anything about making our transportation system reliant on the grid.
2. Rare earth metals are used in all kinds of things
3. Yes, we are energy independent for the moment, but Trump still wants to open the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and is using energy independence as an excuse. IF that excuse is justified, it suggests there are concerns about future energy independence. Conservation, efficiency, and diversification of energy sources is a way to mitigate that concern. We ought to be thinking of the future, and the big picture. China has an advantage over us in that they can make 25-year plans without worrying that every 4 or 8 years a new administration will come along and undo everything that was done with the long term in mind. It’s wasteful, and hard for industry to plan ahead. We should be thinking about the future if we are going to maintain our global economic dominance.
Kristi, not sure why your comment repeated here but for all readers, this exchange occurs earlier in this thread.
JRF.