It looks like ExxonMobil has finally had enough of California’s environmentalist clown show. In a move that can only be described as epic, Exxon has filed a defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and his merry band of activist accomplices, including the Sierra Club and other virtue-signaling outfits. Their crime? Allegedly smearing Exxon’s reputation with claims that are as baseless as they are self-serving.
Let’s set the stage. Bonta, ever the aspiring political showman, has spent years targeting Exxon and other oil companies. In 2022, he subpoenaed Exxon as part of his crusade against the so-called “global plastics crisis.” By 2024, he upped the ante, accusing the company of running a “decades-long campaign of deception” about plastics recycling. According to Bonta, ExxonMobil has been lying to the public, pushing the “myth” of recycling while raking in billions and polluting the planet. Oh, the horror.
But here’s the kicker: ExxonMobil isn’t rolling over. This isn’t some slapped-together PR campaign or a weak press release meant to placate the mob. No, Exxon took the gloves off and went straight to federal court in Beaumont, Texas. Why Texas? Because they know better than to trust California courts, which are about as friendly to oil companies as PETA is to a steakhouse. The lawsuit calls out Bonta and his pals for what they really are: political opportunists running a “deliberate smear campaign” under the guise of environmentalism.
Calling Out the Greenwashed Hypocrisy
ExxonMobil’s lawsuit points out the irony of Bonta’s accusations, labeling his campaign as “reverse greenwashing.” While these so-called environmentalists strut around proclaiming their moral superiority, they’re actually undermining legitimate recycling efforts and stifling innovation. And for what? Political points and donations. The lawsuit even suggests that Bonta’s antics are less about protecting the planet and more about padding his résumé for his inevitable run at higher office.
And let’s not forget the hypocrisy of California’s own policies. The state collects recycling fees on every plastic bottle you buy, yet much of that plastic ends up in overseas dumps, contributing to the same pollution crisis they claim to be combating. If anyone is perpetuating a scam here, it’s California.
Enough of the Mishegoss
You can tell that Attorney General Bonta had been caught off guard by this,” explained environmental lawyer Leonard Grissom to the Globe on Monday. “Usually, with a defamation suit like this, they are quick to a response. But not here.
“And it’s odd. Exxon, as well as other big oil companies, have been going after environmentalists more and more. And Exxon’s reaction to the suit in September showed that they had just about enough of all this mishegoss. They assumed too much here, and this suit shows it. Bonta and those environmental groups are going to respond soon. And when they do, we are going to see exactly just what kind of legal battle we are in for. Oil companies usually don’t respond like this.
https://californiaglobe.com/fl/exxonmobil-sues-ag-rob-bonta-environmental-groups-over-defamation/
ExxonMobil’s legal move isn’t just a defense—it’s a declaration. For years, Bonta and his ilk have been using oil companies as scapegoats for every environmental issue under the sun. Now, Exxon is saying, “Not today, Rob. Not today.” This lawsuit could very well expose the shaky foundation of Bonta’s entire crusade.
The company is demanding damages and a full retraction of the defamatory statements. In other words, they’re not just playing to win—they’re playing to embarrass. And while Bonta’s office has yet to respond, it’s safe to say the pressure is on. After all, defamation cases require evidence, not just political bluster.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about ExxonMobil. It’s about pushing back against the broader climate hysteria and the politicians who exploit it for power. The environmental movement, for all its high-minded rhetoric, has become a religion—a dogma enforced by fearmongering and pseudo-science. And ExxonMobil’s lawsuit might just be the first step in holding these zealots accountable.
It’s about time someone stood up to these eco-bullies. Bonta and his allies are quick to vilify corporations while conveniently ignoring the real-world benefits these companies provide—like, say, affordable energy and materials that make modern life possible. Sure, plastics have issues. But if Bonta were serious about solutions, he’d be working with companies like Exxon, not slandering them in a transparent bid for votes.
Conclusion
So here we are: ExxonMobil versus the State of California and its self-righteous minions. It’s a classic David-and-Goliath tale, except this time, David is packing billions in resources and a top-notch legal team. Rob Bonta, on the other hand, might want to rethink his career strategy. Because when the dust settles, this lawsuit could leave his political ambitions in the same state as California’s high-speed rail project: derailed and going nowhere fast.
ExxonMobil’s lawsuit isn’t just justified—it’s a long-overdue reckoning. Let’s see how Rob Bonta and his greenwashed army fare when they’re forced to play by the rules of actual evidence and accountability. My guess? Not well.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Jury trial demanded”
How do I get on that jury? Not likely for several reasons, #1 being I don’t live in TX.
You could move there and have a shot,as I suspect it will be quite awhile before jury selection begins.
Beaumont sounds nicer than it is.
Mark Chesnutt is from Beaumont, and he always sounds pretty good to me!
I’ve been to Beaumont, it is a pretty little town with nice people.
https://www.beaumonttexas.gov/
I think ExxonMobil should win , but venue shopping doesn’t go down well with judges.
Why not Houston where they have their HQ
Playing the ecoscum at their own game.
The plot thickens! Pass the popcorn please. A good turn of events.
They shouldn’t stop there. As I said at the very end of my Jan 10th GelbspanFiles blog post listing the pile of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits (over damages from global warming) which basically defame Dr Willie Soon, I suggested that Exxon could also go after CA AG Rob Bonta over Bonta’s similarly defamatory 2023 CAGW lawsuit against them. Many folks may not know this, but Exxon – in a different court procedure – was asking to see all the correspondence from Naomi Oreskes concerning this collective idiotic climate lawfare efforts. Wish I knew what the outcome of that was …..
I hope Exxon will call you as a witness Russell, or at least use your great work in their proceedings.
Exxon and/or the other major energy company defendants would have to grow a spine first and recant their politically correct recent appeasements to enviros about ‘reducing their carbon emissions.’ In all these years of trying to alert whichever defendants would listen, I only received a single response from one of the lesser-known defendants who said “thanks” for my alert about my Sept 2020 WUWT guest post, and then only further said that he’d “retained counsel.” However, there is one defendant out there with a definite spine. The Oregon County of Multnomah v Exxon lawsuit effort (which apparently plagiarizes content from Puerto Rico) very recently revised their filing to add two new defendants: a ‘p.c.’ gas utility . . . . . and our man Art Robinson. Big, big, big mistake.
I agree Russell,
Oreskes, Supran, and Frumhoff are snakes and the more that becomes public about them the better.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/05/24/the-union-of-concerned-scientists-tries-to-cancel-steve-koonin/
Frumhoff, I think, is one of the ‘useful idiot’ repeaters of the false accusation about ‘industry corrupted skeptic scientists,’ since he was the head of UCS when they spit out their johnny-come-lately efforts in 2015 about worthless industry memos. However, there’s a good chance he knows where some of the bodies are buried. Supran is another matter, being the long-time subordinate of Oreskes. The meme illustration joke I apply to that guy is how he might roll on his former boss if enough pressure is applied to him by either energy company defendant lawyers or congressional investigators.
I think prosecutors in general would do a better job if they were subject to defamation suits, and the same goes for defense attorneys.
I would hope that other states and cities will take notice.
In the recent CNN defamation suit the judge had to instruct CNN’s lawyer to stop calling the defendant a liar and to apologize to the defendant. In front of the jury.
That’s misleading . The judge repremanded lawyers for BOTH sides.
The judge presiding over Zachary Young’s defamation case against CNN slammed lawyers on both sides for a lack of professionalism on Wednesday. “This isn’t kindergarten,” Judge William S. Henry said.
Absolute immunity for their prosecutorial duties. Courts in general are a safe havens from defamation for judges lawyers and withesses
I’ve seen a number of cases where my county has had to pay out money for errors on the part of prosecutors and judges, but not facing any personal liability. It would be nice if misconduct on their part could lead to the same type of prison terms as police face.
‘Sure, plastics have issues.’
So do wooden catheters. Please stop playing nice with misanthropic, Marxist, Malthusians.
Heck of a place to get a splinter.
“Big oil” only exists because of the wealthier countries being addicted to the products and fuels that are manufactured from fossil fuels that makes THEIR lives more comfortable.
THEIR needs for smaller and faster electronics, and for bigger and faster planes, ships, and launches into outer space are the only reasons that crude oil is needed.
I don’t think I’m addicted to the products of Big Oil, but I wouldn’t last long without them. I need them just below my requirements for air, food, water. Coffee is fine too.
What food and water do you have that is not brought to you va use of fossil fuel?
Food that doesn’t spoil before it can be eaten.
What are you heating your tipi with, kemo sabe?
Addicted. Only reasons… What drivel. Playing with words.
And yet you live and enjoy the comforts of the modern world.
Walk the walk.
Lead by example, Ronald. Give up everything that is made with petroleum products, manufactured with power generated from petroleum products, and transported with petroleum products. All of it. And while you’re at it, grow your own food because all the food you don’t grow yourself involved petroleum products at every stage from planting to fertilizing, to spraying to prevent pests, to harvesting, to transporting to your local grocery. In fact, cross off the use of water delivered to the faucets in your house. That also involved petroleum products to build the pipes and infrastructure, power the pumps, fuel the machinery that built the infrastructure, etc. Don’t be another chest-thumping, self-flagellating, sanctimonious virtue-signaling greenie. Go all in and show us how it’s done. Then teach all the billions who would love to have even a portion of the luxury you enjoy how they can have it without petroleum. You can do it, Ronald. The adventurous lifestyle of a prehistoric hunter-gatherer awaits. Seize the day and show us the way!
He’ll need to also stop using any “Green Energy” collectors. Wind and solar energy collectors are built from resources that are mined with diesel powered vehicles, assembled in factories that used oil products & are powered by coal (in China), and then installed using diesel powered concrete trucks & diesel powered cranes.
Diesel powered vehicles that are made of metal (coal fire) and plastics(petroleum)…ditto for the trains and trucks.
You can go on and on.
And, the NECESSARY backup will be provided, once again, by coal, oil and gas.
Poor Ron missed out on his iphone 16 and his new google 9 pro and boy is he venting 🙂
It’s long overdue that Oil companies refuse to supply any oil, or derivative, to Commifornia on the basis by doing so they fear being prosecuted.
A thought experiment- pretending that a region like Wokeachusetts finally arrives at Net Zero Nirvana. And it has lots of batteries so it always has sufficient electricity. But, there can still be outages due to storms or other reasons. So, now I have a new generator that runs on gasoline (I’m using gas I got at an airport with no junk in it- at twice the cost). But in Net Zero Nirvana, I wonder if gasoline will be available? Probably not- after all, it means ZERO fossil fuels. So, if there’s an outage what do they think we can use to power our home during an outage?
A hypothetical question because NetZero is a mirage that can never be reached with any known technology other than burning wood, which will not support the lifestyle of the present population.
You would be able to modify or replace the diesel to run om whatever is being used in the jet engines. Batteries of any known chemistry will not support long haul flights.
Yes, of course it’s a mirage. I’m just curious what the lunatics pushing net zero think about such future scenarios. Apparently they aren’t thinking that far ahead.
Your mistake is in believing they are capable of ‘thought’. All the evidence suggests otherwise.
You can also get your own domestic battery.
Having a look at California, I’m surprised at the lack of uptake and installation of domestic Li batteries when compared to Australia. They don’t seem to be as popular, maybe because they aren’t subsidised.
Above comment meant for JZ.
A generator will run longer than a battery if you have a nice supply of gas or propane.
I’ll take a propane fired generator, thanks. The stupid battery won’t be charged when needed or won’t last long enough to get through the outage or will light itself (and my house) on fire.
Stick with what works.
A rubber band will go further than a battery powered commercial airplane.
Diesel fuel will always be required by firetrucks, cement trucks, garbage trucks, freight trains and trucks, heavy machinery used in forestry, mining and agriculture, cargo ships and for emergency power generation required by for high-rise buildings, hospitals, fire and police stations, etc. Why are these city slickers so ignorant?
Winter has just started and the Canadian Polar Pipeline is gushing really cold Arctic air
into the eastern US. Thank God for fossil fuels readily supplied by Big Oil and Gas.
Here in Wokeachusetts- the state knows you can’t get rid of 100% of fossil fuels for the reasons you mention. So, they have a theory that they can make up for it with carbon credits. One reason they are trying hard to end all forestry- then they can claim the forests are adding carbon. But, my electrician, who just installed my generator, said that as of the beginning of this year, all communities in the state must buy only EV trucks- not sure exactly what that entails, I’ll need to find out. Not sure if that includes SUVs for the police and fire departments- or just trucks for the road crews, etc.
No need to worry. When President-elect Donald Trump becomes president he will issue an EO reversing the EPA CO2 endangerment decree.
Once again, the question becomes how many humans have to die because of fire trucks and ambulances and police cars that can’t answer the call because they are “charging” before the voters revolt.
Bon-ta (Italian) – goodness
A dark sense of humour?
Every minute Bonta spends outside of California promoting or defending himself is another minute he is not working for Californians for the job he was elected to do.
Unfortunately, a good proportion of CA voters elected him specifically to declare war on Big Oil.
Except for Big Oil imported from Ecuador and Indonesia which the Brown and Getty families control, you mean.
Charles Rotter, thank you for bringing this to our attention. The District Court chosen i.e., Eastern District of Texas Beaumont may be a favorable venue (hopefully). In recent times, we are seeing the pendulum swing back to reality from issue pushing in a lot of matters e.g., DEI. Hoping for a good outcome.
Absolutely not a lawyer, but I did work in a non-profit that was delegated management of governmental property and business and so was covered under sovereign immunity (Florida). The coverage did not extend to illegal activities, in particular if we knew or should have known that the activity was illegal (clearing things with legal when in doubt).
Bonta may have such a defense, or he may not.
I know it is only a civil trial, but I sure wish Exxon could find a way to add horse thieving or rustling to the charges; then the Texas jury could give the defendants and their lawyers the gala necktie party they so richly deserve!
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I will follow it with great interest.
The unnoted complication here is California’s general sovereign immunity, which definitely applies to the AG (meaning he cannot be sued for harm caused by official acts). Undecided whether deliberate defamation is an exception, so the case probably breaks new legal ground.
As I see it Bonta is no longer the AG when he is campaigning and campaigning is not an official act of the AG. The suit specifically says they are not suing Bonta in his capacity as the AG but rather in his capacity as an individual and recognizes his capacity as the AG to raise legal issues regarding Exxon. I will follow with interest.
Me too!
Given that the soon-to-be-gone current Administration is insanely anti-“fossil fuel” and carbon, I have a question about Trump’s choice for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright.
What is the assessment of the staff and commenters here at WUWT of Chris Wright for Secretary of Energy? Is he a squish or will he hold the line against the GlowBULL Warming Fascists?
A current article at CFACT quotes him as follows:
Chris Wright is on a mission to improve human lives
By Brian Yablonski
https://www.cfact.org/2025/01/18/chris-wright-is-on-a-mission-to-improve-human-lives/
January 18th, 2025
“Chris Wright is a thought leader in the energy industry known for his genuine, down-to-earth approachability coupled with an infectious enthusiasm to improve human lives.
Because he channels this passion by providing more affordable energy to ordinary Americans, many in the media have sought to label Chris as a climate change denier. That strikes me as not only lazy, but untrue.
In fact, he has written very publicly, in a company report last year: “Climate change is a real and global challenge that we should and can address,” also noting that human activity has “driven up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by 50 percent.” Hardly the words of a denier. Rather, Chris is a thoughtful problem solver and somebody who understands that access to affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy enables both greater economic growth and environmental progress. And he understands the trade-offs associated with unrealistic policy solutions being offered. He’s not afraid to call that out.”
One of the big issues with recycling and a circular economy is that it presumes the recycling and manufacture of new product is local. But environmental policies, particularly those related to energy, make manufacturing prohibitively expensive. Hence the recycled plastics get shipped to Asia as the article says and the circle that needs to be completed turns into a trip around the globe.
Recycling is a complicated business. Turns out easy and economic for steel (including food cans) and aluminum beverage containers. Cardboard is easily worth recycling—so everybody does. Turns out that even though remelting glass cullet uses 1/4 the energy of melting new glass, it isn’t economic because of the transportation cost involved.
Plastic recycling is complicated by several factors. Several different kinds of plastic. Plastic packaging contamination (paper labels). Hard to get recycled high value stuff like PET beverage bottles—depends on locality and refuse density. Only economically doable in high density locales. Easy to get low value mixes such as recycled rot resistant plastic ‘lumber’ like used for outdoor seating here in Fort Lauderdale.
You should check out British Columbia’s extensive recycle program: Return-it.ca. Click on “Beverage Containers” to learn about the deposit-refund system for all types of beverages containers. This system keeps a lot containers out of landfills.
If BC can operate this recycle system, why can’t California?
I live in Burnaby, BC and the regional incinerator processes 250,000 tons of refuse a year. The heat energy from the incinerator is used to generate electricity.
That is probably the best route – trash to energy. Lots of BTUs locked up in that plastic and an incinerator doesn’t care if there is a little paper or food in the mix; nor does it care if different grades and colors are mixed.
Rud,
Exxon’s method cracks the plastic (and any food attached to it) down to the molecular level in a steam cracker. It is similar to their heavy oil refinery equipment. Most of the recycled plastic is made into fuel (gasoline, etc) the rest is used as feedstock to make more plastic. It is unique in that it can take all types of plastic. It truly is revolutionary.
This lawsuit will be of interest to Australians because billionaire mining magnate Andrew Forrest’s Intergenerational Environment Justice Fund (IEJF) has been named as a defendant.
I really wish Forrest would stick to what he actually knows… mining !!
I recently sent an email, saying that I did not appreciate my shareholder funds being used for Green Energy and decarbonisation projects.
Even got a reply saying the email had been sent to the Investor Relations team.
I would love to see Twiggy Forrest on the wrong end of this one. However, to be fair he has apparently recognized his Green Hydrogen wasn’t working out really well and has desisted from that activity.
But not before he ran off his big mouth. Having a lot of money doesn’t necessarily make one smart dude unless it is from personal innovation like Musk.
I know a few very wealthy dumbbells … even helped some of them to that end.
California government just sucks.
“And let’s not forget the hypocrisy of California’s own policies. The state collects recycling fees on every plastic bottle you buy, yet much of that plastic ends up in overseas dumps, contributing to the same pollution crisis they claim to be combating. If anyone is perpetuating a scam here, it’s California.”
We need to figure out how long California has been collecting recycling fees, how much the fees are and the dollars California has raked in over the years.
We need a list of all the recycling centers California is operating. Not collection centers but actual plastic recycling centers. Sending your waste out of state or out of country is not recycling. It is merely a transfer of your problem to someone else. I think California’s recycling fee is a fraud, heads should roll.
Down under, the public gets the 10c when taken to a recycling centre, in essence paid for doing the collection and sorting.
10cents..
Plastic soft drink bottles
Glass Beer and soft drink bottles, if they exist.
Nope to:
Wine bottles
Any bottles without a 10 cent deposit, covers nearly all bottles.
Plastic milk containers
Fluorescent tubes
Led tubes
Notwithstanding, it is like selling a $1 debenture for $1.20 with promise of a 20% return in the first year and market performance thereafter.
I was in Amsterdam recently and remarked on the loose garbage blowing about in the streets … turns out it is a consequence of “recyclers” emptying out bins.
Recently, in my Brisbane suburb, i have noticed some undesirables rummaging through the bins on collection days.
There are social and micro environmental consequences.
Ugh, I hope (but I’m not that hopeful) this basically destroys Bonta’s political future. He’s in the conga line of far left wackos pre-anointed to rule us here.
The LA fires might change the dynamic in Kali, we’ll see.
It’s about time.
Had Exxon pulled out of California that would have been better than a law suit.
I think that would only work if all oil companies pulled out of California. They would only need to do it for about a week and everything would grind to a halt.
But we need ALL the fuel companies to pull out together (as they are all supposed to be ‘killing the planet’ & therefore all liable to be prosecuted for damages ); they all have a duty to protect their shareholders’ dividends from being reduced by lawsuits.
Let’s see how well California does with a Nut Zero economy ( I reckon 3 weeks before the riots), the fuel companies should not go back in without immunity from prosecution … same as given to the COVID-19 jab manufacturers.
It’s fun to think about, but they would get slapped with a RICO suit and their facilities nationalized.
Bonta is following in the footsteps of Becerra and our soon to be ex vice president Harris (thankfully).
Becerra as I remember sued Trump 30 or more times during Trumps first administration.
I arrived in California in 1973 when things were still fairly conservative and sane. I watched it go to hell in a handbasket over time. There are still some sane conservative people (40% voted for Trump/Vance) but basically the public and some private unions run the politics in the state.
While the high speed rail debacle resulted in no actual railway, certainly some friends of some politicians made many millions.
Go Exxon Go! Kick some greenie a**
Exxon should have played cutthroat hardball from the jump. People like Bonta and Newsom cannot be treated as honorable.
LONG overdue. Stop trying to appease the Eco-Nazis and instead remind people of all the things they take for granted that only exist thanks to coal, oil and gas.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, stop feeding the crocodile hoping that will eat you last.