Exxon Isn't the Only Fossil Fuel Giant Getting Its Ass Sued

[Back]

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-isnt-the-only-fossil-fuel-giant-getting-its-ass-s-1839268301


The New York Attorney General’s office has been pursuing Exxon for years for everything from climate denial to fraud. The oil company that made billions while funding climate denial has tried to avoid ending up in court. But despite its best efforts, Exxon went on trial in a New York courtroom on Tuesday over claims that it defrauded investors.

The case is a landmark moment for climate litigation, marking the first climate fraud case to go to trial. New York Attorney General Letitia James and her office allege that Exxon defrauded investors by essentially keeping two sets of books.

A number of Big Oil firms assume future climate policies like a carbon tax or market will come into play, and they build that “price” into their analysis of whether fossil fuel projects can make money or not. In their public-facing reports, Exxon said it priced carbon at $80 per ton for all of its projects, which is much more aggressive than the current carbon pricing mechanism. Internally, the company priced carbon much lower, court documents say. The effect essentially made Exxon look like a better investment than it was, the lawsuit claims, thus defrauding shareholders to the tune of between $476 million and $1.6 billion, according to the New York AG’s office.

And theres more! Baltimore, Colorado, and Rhode Island are also suing petroleum companies for damages due to the effects of climate change in their areas for the money to deal with the damages.

We are well past the confirmation and consensus of climate science into using it now to litigate against the companies that have tried to cover it up for so long. The science now can determine specifically how the weather has changed in different regions due to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and can directly link it to petroleum company output.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/how-a-revolution-in-climate-science-is-putting-big-oil-back-on-trial/


If an oil pipeline breaks, you can easily point to who was responsible for the spill. However, climate change is a global problem, caused by global emissions that have uneven impacts. To sue someone, you have to prove that they caused you measurable harm. By its very nature, climate change is a difficult problem for courts to untangle.


With increasing specificity and speed, scientists have been able to tell us how much worse climate change made an extreme weather event.


Except that has changed. With increasing specificity and speed, scientists have been able to tell us how climate change intensified an extreme weather event. Now we can learn the effects almost in real-time. For instance, within weeks of the extreme heat wave in Europe this summer or the flooding from Hurricane Harvey in Houston in 2017, researchers published working papers explaining how much worse they were made by climate change. (Europe’s heat wave was 10 times more likely because of warming, and in Houston there was 38 percent more rainfall.) Still another paper analyzed how climate change fueled California’s 2012-2014 drought (up to 27 percent worse). Yet another focus of research looks at how much, say, Exxon’s historic pollution is responsible for today’s climate impacts—another area of attribution science called source attribution.


“The court room is a new frontier around addressing climate change, and I think there’s a relatively small number of scientists including myself who are engaged,” says Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist with the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. “But as these cases emerge and proliferate, there’s an opportunity for attribution science to inform climate law…This work is at an early proof-of-concept stage.”


As E&E News noted last month, environmental lawyers expect “the next wave of climate litigation is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when.'”


The lawyers working on advancing climate liability cases in the courts see the advances in the science as integral to building their cases against governments for inaction, and major fossil fuel polluters for misleading the public and investors. It helps them explain why plaintiffs have standing to sue, and how the corporations and governments turned a blind eye to the robust evidence before them.

Litigating the petroleum companies for some of the tax free billions they made while they pushed climate denial wont undo the damage but at least will justly share the cost of fixing it for everyone.

[Tgo01]

Let me see if I understand this latest bit of leftist bullshit correctly:

Humans are like "Hey, we like cars! But cars require oil! Will anyone out there pump oil out for us so our cars go vroom vroom?"
Oil companies say "We can!"
"Experts" come along and say "Cars cause climate change!!!"
Democrats respond with "Well clearly this is the fault of...OIL COMPANIES! Let's sue them!"

Someone please tell me where I went wrong in my understanding.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Could Backrash be more of a soyboy fag?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You seem to be pretty obsessed with that word. Projecting much?

Why? You cruising for a date?

[Tgo01]

I hear GSIV Rogue is open to meeting people from the PC to "hang out" and "chat."

[Neveragain]

Let me see if I understand this latest bit of leftist bullshit correctly:

Humans are like "Hey, we like cars! But cars require oil! Will anyone out there pump oil out for us so our cars go vroom vroom?"
Oil companies say "We can!"
"Experts" come along and say "Cars cause climate change!!!"
Democrats respond with "Well clearly this is the fault of...OIL COMPANIES! Let's sue them!"

Someone please tell me where I went wrong in my understanding.

It is interesting in that, the oil companies aren't the ones that are actually burning the fuel. I still can't afford an electric car so it doesn't really matter if the oil companies "funded denial" (whatever the fuck that means, let alone being illegal).

Slip and fall lawsuits are bullshit.

[Neveragain]

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-isnt-the-only-fossil-fuel-giant-getting-its-ass-s-1839268301



And theres more! Baltimore, Colorado, and Rhode Island are also suing petroleum companies for damages due to the effects of climate change in their areas for the money to deal with the damages.

We are well past the confirmation and consensus of climate science into using it now to litigate against the companies that have tried to cover it up for so long. The science now can determine specifically how the weather has changed in different regions due to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and can directly link it to petroleum company output.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/how-a-revolution-in-climate-science-is-putting-big-oil-back-on-trial/



Litigating the petroleum companies for some of the tax free billions they made while they pushed climate denial wont undo the damage but at least will justly share the cost of fixing it for everyone.

The headline for this really should read "How to make fuel costs skyrocket"

Fuel companies should charge a premium in these areas or not sell their products there at all.

[Tgo01]

It is interesting in that, the oil companies aren't the ones that are actually burning the fuel.

What's even more interesting is the cars themselves are the ones that are requiring oil. Why aren't car companies being held accountable for selling us all polluting death machines that are going to destroy the planet in 12 years?

Oh yes of course, because Democrats have made oil companies out to be the cartoonish villain twirling their handlebar moustache while tying people of indeterminate gender to railroad tracks.

[Neveragain]

What's even more interesting is the cars themselves are the ones that are requiring oil. Why aren't car companies being held accountable for selling us all polluting death machines that are going to destroy the planet in 12 years?

Oh yes of course, because Democrats have made oil companies out to be the cartoonish villain twirling their handlebar moustache while tying people of indeterminate gender to railroad tracks.

https://i.gifer.com/3ngL.gif

Let's really get down to brass tacks here. Isn't it the earths fault for having oil in the first place? Fuck nature and it's dirty, dirty oil.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If big oil is successfully sued, expect everything you own to go up dramatically in cost. Anything plastic depends on oil.

[Back]

Someone please tell me where I went wrong in my understanding.

I have to say I am proud of you, Tgo, for being so polite and open to discussion of the subject.


Let me see if I understand this latest bit of leftist bullshit correctly:

Oof. Right off the bat you're straying into fictional territory. Giving a shit about the environment is not partisan. Another issue with your opening statement is that current concerns about our atmosphere are based on science, not bullshit.


Humans are like "Hey, we like cars! But cars require oil! Will anyone out there pump oil out for us so our cars go vroom vroom?"
Oil companies say "We can!"

The first part of your cute little summary of a very complex situation is just that.


"Experts" come along and say "Cars cause climate change!!!"

Now you aren't being completely truthful here. Co2 is the issue and it is produced in large quantities by burning things like fossil fuel.


Democrats respond with "Well clearly this is the fault of...OIL COMPANIES! Let's sue them!"

The oil companies knew a long time ago about climate science and the impact of their product on our environment, let alone the destruction needed to get the product, yet decided to keep making billions tax free and were actively defrauding everyone about it. By everyone I mean the public and the government.

Despite the majority consensus of people who study our atmosphere the oil companies managed to use disinformation, otherwise known as lies, to deceive enough of the public and government representatives to let them off the hook while making billions of dollars tax free.

Now everyone is finally wising up and holding the oil companies accountable for their actions. It would have been different if all those decades ago the oil industry put warning labels on everything that said "use of our product may cause global catastrophe", but they not only were not honest with the public and did not do that, they actively deceived everyone with lies saying not to worry about it.

[RichardCranium]

The oil companies knew a long time ago about climate science and the impact of their product on our environment, let alone the destruction needed to get the product, yet decided to keep making billions tax free and were actively defrauding everyone about it. By everyone I mean the public and the government.

Despite the majority consensus of people who study our atmosphere the oil companies managed to use disinformation, otherwise known as lies, to deceive enough of the public and government representatives to let them off the hook while making billions of dollars tax free.

Now everyone is finally wising up and holding the oil companies accountable for their actions. It would have been different if all those decades ago the oil industry put warning labels on everything that said "use of our product may cause global catastrophe", but they not only were not honest with the public and did not do that, they actively deceived everyone with lies saying not to worry about it.

So your solution is to waste millions in taxpayer monies on lawsuits? That'll show them!

[Back]

So your solution is to waste millions in taxpayer monies on lawsuits? That'll show them!

LOL. Its not MY solution. Its our solution. They have more than enough money to cover it. And its not a waste. Its not about being right. Its about fixing the damage done.

Whats your solution?

[RichardCranium]

LOL. Its not MY solution. Its our solution. They have more than enough money to cover it. And its not a waste. Its not about being right. Its about fixing the damage done.

Whats your solution?

Absolutely nothing will come of these lawsuits, except for wasted time and money.

[Gelston]

This is going to go no where. Besides, it is the consumers that make the pollution by using the product. So NYC should sue itself.

If I were the CEO, I'd stop importing any fuel products I controlled to hostile states, such as New York.

[Back]

Absolutely nothing will come of these lawsuits, except for wasted time and money.

Let me ask you this. I'm pretty sure you would not accept it if someone lied to you about a product they sold to you.

Why are you so willing to let the oil companies off the hook?

[Gelston]

Let me ask you this. I'm pretty sure you would not accept it if someone lied to you about a product they sold to you.

Why are you so willing to let the oil companies off the hook?

Why are you so willing to not accept culpability for your actions?

[Gelston]

Society as we know it would not exist without these fuel products. To sue them for it is to sue all human progress in the last 100+ years.

[Back]

Why are you so willing to not accept culpability for your actions?

Why are you turning your head to their defrauding everyone?

[Gelston]

Why are you turning your head to their defrauding everyone?

They didn't. Don't be a useful idiot.

[Back]

They didn't. Don't be a useful idiot.

Dude, you're the one telling me not to be a useful idiot when you're the one repeating their lies? Holy fucking shit.

[Gelston]

Dude, you're the one telling me not to be a useful idiot when you're the one repeating their lies? Holy fucking shit.

What lies did I repeat?

[Methais]

You seem to be pretty obsessed with that word. Projecting much?

lol you're offended

http://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/soyboy-2.png

[Back]

What lies did I repeat?

Were you somehow unaware that the oil companies funded climate change denial? That they paid "experts" to say the actual science was wrong? That they've been doing this since as far back as the 50s? That they used the same tactics as the tobacco companies when they paid experts to say cigarettes don't cause cancer and how they've been sued since?

[Gelston]

Were you somehow unaware that the oil companies funded climate change denial? That they paid "experts" to say the actual science was wrong? That they've been doing this since as far back as the 50s? That they used the same tactics as the tobacco companies when they paid experts to say cigarettes don't cause cancer and how they've been sued since?

I never said anything about that either way, so you are saying I said things I never said. Good job.

[Methais]

https://i.gifer.com/3ngL.gif

Let's really get down to brass tacks here. Isn't it the earths fault for having oil in the first place? Fuck nature and it's dirty, dirty oil.

It's the sun's fault. If there was no sun, there would be no life on Earth, hence no oil companies.

Thanks a lot sun. Fucking asshole.

[Methais]

Its not about being right. Its about fixing the damage done.

Look how fucking stupid you are. :lol:

[Methais]

Dude, you're the one telling me not to be a useful idiot when you're the one repeating their lies? Holy fucking shit.

Who's actually burning the oil? The oil companies? Or the consumers?

[Back]

Who's actually burning the oil? The oil companies? Or the consumers?

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that oil companies have actively defrauded everyone by lying about the effects of using their products.


Today, the state of New York will face off with ExxonMobil for oral arguments in the trial alleging that the company misled investors by providing false assurances that the company was adequately costing climate-related risks. But win or lose, that doesn’t mean an end to deliberate misinformation campaigns. Here’s what we should all know about how to resist those efforts by Exxon and other big corporate actors.

Scientists have known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change. There is so much evidence that at least 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. It’s as settled as the link between smoking and cancer.


The fossil fuel industry has known about the role of its products in global warming for 60 years. Exxon’s own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, these companies have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. All the while, the science is clear that climate-catalyzed damages have worsened, storms have intensified, and droughts and heatwaves have become more frequent and severe, while forests have been damaged and wildfires have burned through the country.


By polluting the information landscape, these companies misrepresented the safety of their product and denied the public their right to be accurately informed.


Big oil is not the only industry to do so. Big tobacco is a famous case, but asbestos and lead industries have done it too. These days, campaigns by soda companies to contest sugar science and by the NFL to distort the science on concussions use similar tactics. The campaigns all run a similar playbook: they cite fake experts, place impossible demands on the science, cherry-pick data, impugn the integrity of individual scientists and the scientific process, and appeal to conspiracy theories. They leave the public with the perpetual impression that there are lots of unresolved questions, and that scientists are not to be trusted.


Research has confirmed that disinformation works, which is, of course, why special interests fund it. So it is crucial to expose disinformation for what it is, so that the public doesn’t fall prey to the next industrial-scale propaganda effort.


For example, cold weather is often used to argue that global warming isn’t happening. This favorite talking point of President Trump is an extreme form of cherry picking: ignoring what’s happening to our planet by focusing on local weather conditions. Just because the planet is heating up rapidly doesn’t mean cold weather in North Dakota will cease to exist overnight. But if we look at the overall picture, it’s hot and getting hotter. Our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of over four atomic bombs per second, and the four hottest years on record are the last four years.


Exxon also misled us through arguments that appear convincing but contain logical fallacies. One is the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past, so today’s climate change must be natural, also. But just because something happened naturally in the past doesn’t mean it has to be natural now; the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. It’s like arguing that people have died naturally from cancer in the past, therefore smoking can’t cause cancer today.


And then there’s the classic tactic of citing fake experts to cast doubt on the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The most prominent example is an internet petition of 31,000 dissenting “experts” who think humans aren’t disrupting the climate. However, over 99% of the signatories have no expertise in climate research – it’s populated with graduates of programs in computer science, veterinary science, and mechanical engineering, as well as dead people and pop stars, but very few with climate expertise. In actual fact, 97% or more of domain experts agree on the fundamental fact that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.


Exposing and explaining the techniques of denial are crucial steps in neutralizing disinformation, not just from the fossil fuel industry but from any source. Once people know the ways they can be deceived, disinformation no longer has power over them. As Edward Everett once said: “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.” But it’s not enough to offer information – we also have to expose disinformation, so that people understand what we have been up against.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-disinformation

[Gelston]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that oil companies have actively defrauded everyone by lying about the effects of using their products.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-disinformation

So you were just lying when you were saying I was repeating the Oil company's lies?

[Seizer]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that oil companies have actively defrauded everyone by lying about the effects of using their products.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-disinformation
So answer me this if we and oil companies are causing climate change why did the ice age stop and the mini-ice age during the dark ages stop?

Let’s look at the alarmists track record too.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

[Methais]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that leftists and their useful idiots like me have actively defrauded everyone for decades by lying and exaggerating the fuck out of the cause and effect of climate change.

Ah yes, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I completely agree.

[Astray]

So answer me this if we and oil companies are causing climate change why did the ice age stop and the mini-ice age during the dark ages stop?

"HURR DURR NOBODY CAN EXPLAIN THAT BUT THIS ARTICLE ON THE GUARDIAN SAYS THIS" -Back, probably real soon.

Paraphrasing, since I don't actually care what Back has to say.

[Gelston]

I'm still waiting on him to tell me which oil company lies I'm repeating. So far he is batting .000.

[Methais]

I'm still waiting on him to tell me which oil company lies I'm repeating. So far he is batting .000.

Just to clarify, that's his lifetime average, and not just today's.

[Back]

I'm still waiting on him to tell me which oil company lies I'm repeating. So far he is batting .000.

Semantics. You said they're not defrauding anyone. They most certainly are and have for decades. You're still defending them even after they've already been proven guilty. So, to say they have not done what they have done, is following along with them saying they are innocent, in a sense.

I may have misspoke and I can own that. Can you own being a puppet to their whims?

[Methais]

Semantics. You said they're not defrauding anyone. They most certainly are and have for decades. You're still defending them even after they've already been proven guilty. So, to say they have not done what they have done, is following along with them saying they are innocent, in a sense.

I may have misspoke and I can own that. Can you own being a puppet to their whims?

I sometimes find myself wondering what sort of event would have to take place for Back to realize what a useful idiot he's been for most likely his entire adult life.

[Parkbandit]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that oil companies have actively defrauded everyone by lying about the effects of using their products.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-disinformation


https://media1.tenor.com/images/8fc147160db9b022e6511c483fae15dc/tenor.gif?itemid=7685212

Never change Backlash.

Thank you.

[Jeril]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8fc147160db9b022e6511c483fae15dc/tenor.gif?itemid=7685212

Never change Backlash.

Thank you.

Nice new avatar, what brought that change on?

[Gelston]

Semantics. You said they're not defrauding anyone. They most certainly are and have for decades. You're still defending them even after they've already been proven guilty. So, to say they have not done what they have done, is following along with them saying they are innocent, in a sense.

I may have misspoke and I can own that. Can you own being a puppet to their whims?

Once again saying I said things I didn't. Way to be an idiot.

[Methais]

Nice new avatar, what brought that change on?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?122240-Official-Wyrom-on-Jackpots

[Tgo01]

Giving a shit about the environment is not partisan.

You're right, it's the suing of a business due to people using their products and really our entire way of life relying on said product that is the bullshit.


Now you aren't being completely truthful here. Co2 is the issue and it is produced in large quantities by burning things like fossil fuel.

So you recognize that oil by itself, even the extraction of said oil, is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things in regards to pollution. It's how people use said oil, you know, refining it and putting it into their vehicles to burn that is causing the problem. Tell me again why the oil companies are the ones being sued and not car makers or people who buy and drive cars?

This is like a company selling a hunting rifle then someone buys the gun and murders people and you want to hold the gun maker liable. Oh wait, bad example because that's another leftist bullshit tactic. Let me try again. This is like someone selling pencils then someone buys a pencil and uses it to stab people in the eyes rendering them blind then suing the pencil maker.

[Gelston]

Tell me again why the oil companies are the ones being sued and not car makers or people who buy and drive cars?


Because they make a lot of money and anything that makes a lot of money is obviously evil.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fag

[Jeril]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?122240-Official-Wyrom-on-Jackpots

That was gold, thanks for sharing.