
Massachusetts Sues Exxon over Climate Change, Accusing the Oil Giant of Fraud - elorant
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102019/massachusetts-sues-exxon-climate-change-investor-fraud-misleading-advertising-healey
======
avsteele
This is some combination of grandstanding by the state prosecutors, abuse of
the extremely vague statutes under which such suits can be brought, and a
threat to the rule of law.

It strikes me as implausible that even if Exxon has published all of its
internal climate research it would have made a substantive difference in
people's likelihood to invest, or to consumers propensity to purchase Exxon
gas. Because these are the only outcomes germane to the case aren't they?

You can tell by the comments here that people want Exxon punished, they don't
care much about the means by which this occurs.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Should cigarette companies have been punished for knowing their products kill
and then misleading the public?

Oil kills via air pollution. Oil companies hid this information.

Do corporations get to willingly and maliciously lie to people?

~~~
ThomPete
Cigarettes only kill people.

Oil saves more lives than it kills and it makes lives better for all of us.
You can't just take the negatives and ignore all the positives.

Most of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for oil, the internet would not be
here if it wasn't for oil, most medicine, the ability to keep an incubator
running let alone the materials for creating and I could go on we wouldn't be
as many people on the planet today if it wasn't for our use of oil.

~~~
intended
And wouldn’t this be a nice discussion to have had, 30 years ago, without
firms like Exxon and Fox destroying our ability to discuss this freely and
honestly?

And if we had realized 30 years ago that we were not happy with it, or that
maybe we wanted to reduce our exposure wouldn’t we have had 30 years to change
our infrastructure ?

Wouldn’t the amount of emphasis on the Middle East changed?

Mass transit would be a conversation 30 years more advanced.

The trick in my argument is that 30 years ago we Knew that oil was
problematic.

And we saw good scientists avoid engaging with the paid shills and cranks
arguing for oil and against global warming - because that would give them more
credibility.

Then we saw how that made no difference.

Then scientists went on Fox hoping to have an honest discussion- and were
slaughtered by dishonest arguments, fired by news anchors who were part of an
ecosystem funded by Exxon and their ilk.

We all collectively owe Exxon and it’s friends an accounting for their
actions, which they knowingly took in bad faith.

Because, it would have been nice to have this discussion 30 years ago.

------
_Nat_
The complaint [1] is 211 pages long, but it seems to argue that ExxonMobil
misled both investors and consumers about climate change.

a. Allegedly, investors were wronged by being presented with misleading
projections about the company's future prospects.

b. Allegedly, consumers were wronged by being misled about the impact of the
company's products.

[1]:
[https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20...](https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20-%20Comm.%20v.%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf)

~~~
lugg
It only makes sense to use the term allegedly when something isn't yet proven.

I'm curious how you believe either of those statements are anything but fact
given what we now know.

~~~
ivanhoe
Believes are important in churches, and in courts these are all just
allegations that need to be proven first. That's how the law works.

~~~
derp_dee_derp
Shhh! The church of climate change has found a witch and is conducting an
inquisition here! Who needs the law when a company is literally causing
climate armegeddon?!?!?!??

------
neiman
What are the possible results? If it's only fines than it may not deter anyone
from doing similar things in the future (in case the gain is big enough, i.e.,
bigger than the fine).

Is there a possibility for personal responsibility and jail time for the
people who did this?

~~~
_Nat_
The last two pages of the complaint [1] list its specific requests in "VIII.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF".

This includes a request for $5,000 each violation of a consumer-protection-
act, recovery of legal fees, and a request for " _comprehensive injunctive
relief_ ". However, I suspect that the main thing may be an attempt to get the
court to declare that there're on-going " _deceptive practices_ " (first item
in that section).

I'd guess that, if they can establish wrong-doing, then they'd have a basis
for later follow-up actions.

[1]:
[https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20...](https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20-%20Comm.%20v.%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf)

------
lordnacho
Is there no direct way to sue the company? As in, "You made a big
environmental mess, pay this fine".

This seems to my non lawyer eyes to sound more like "Hey you lied to the
investors who wouldn't otherwise have bought your securities". Which is also a
thing, but seemingly a bit convoluted.

~~~
Bostonian
No, there is no direct way to sue the company, because Exxon has been selling
a legal product the whole time. We all have benefited from cheap fossil fuels
and continue to do so. "More Americans believe in global warming — but they
won't pay much to fix it: Most Americans are unwilling to pay $10 a month to
fight climate change, a survey found." [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-
news/more-americans-believe-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-
americans-believe-global-warming-they-won-t-pay-much-n962001)

The MA and NY lawsuits are grandstanding and scapegoating.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_Most Americans are unwilling to pay $10 a month to fight climate change, a
survey found._

That's quite funny when you think about the costs we will incur if we don't
get a handle on this. Most people really do think in the short term.

~~~
dx87
It could be that they're unwilling to pay $10 a month because they think the
ultra-wealthy and companies bringing in billions of dollars a year should pay
for it.

------
Reedx
When Exxon realized the problem decades ago, they could've lead a forward-
looking campaign. Investing in renewables and nuclear technology. If they had
done that, maybe today we'd be mostly powered by clean energy.

Here's the kicker: It would've been a long term win-win for both Exxon and the
world. Putting themselves in a strong position to capitalize on the transition
and even be a respected player.

~~~
fennecfoxen
This post is a facile fantasy.

To be clear, while you are not required to give a flying fig about whether or
not Exxon investors earn a return, you can't exactly expect them to all line
up to gleefully throw their money away, either. That's a charity, not a
business.

And trust me, if we compare the financial returns on investment for renewables
and nuclear technology over the past N decades, versus Exxon's returns today?
Definitely _not_ a win-win.

~~~
Reedx
I'm talking about a long term view.

If they had started investing back then, they'd likely be in a better position
today and going forward. A leader in _future_ fuels instead of clinging onto
fossil fuels, which is definitively short sighted.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Exxon is worth $293 billion right now. Its earnings over the past N decades
are probably worth more. For that money, you could buy alternative energy
providers outright. You could buy Siemens (~$50 billion), who, in addition to
transportation and other lines of businesses, have a big renewables business,
and are among the world leaders in nuclear ... or, well, they were, until
2011, when they abandoned that line of business entirely.

There is no financial case to be made here whatsoever.

~~~
smt1
I don't disagree, but Exxon might have had the cachet, especially in the
1980s, to speed up decreasing the carbon intensity of the economy. The entire
energy sector is now <= 5% the size of the entire S&P, down from 18%, so it's
unclear if energy companies still have that level of cachet.

Now, going forward, in 2020, there might be a different calculus. Usually, the
market cap/stock price of a company reflects future cash flow. For an E&P
company, much of Exxon's valuation comes from the cash flow expectation on its
oil reserves. That's problematic if some of those oil reserves are in effect
stranded assets. Certainly not all will likely, but say, things like the tar
sands? It very well could be.

------
seventytwo
Good. This is no different than cigarette companies knowingly selling a
cancerous product and misleading the public.

How many more times do we have to be subjected to known harms and
disinformation campaigns before we outlaw this kind of corporate behavior?

~~~
whydoyoucare
Similar argument can be made for fast-food, frozen and heavily processed food,
and many other daily use items. By your yardstick, all of them spread
misinformation and mislead the public since the harms of consuming fast-food
or overly processed food are known.

I then wonder, why this happens to be the case. Can't fathom, really.

~~~
seventytwo
You’ve already demonstrated your bad faith in this thread. I’m not going to
engage with you or your strawmen again.

------
RickJWagner
It's hard for me to imagine a positive outcome from this for either Exxon's
shareholders or the public at large. I imagine it will translate pretty well
into higher prices at the pump for everyone.

------
6d6b73
Massachusetts should now return all the taxes collected from selling gas.
After all if selling gas is fraud, so is collecting taxes on it. :)

------
yters
Seems a lot like the whole impeachment, even though no president has ever been
impeached. Just a bunch of empty virtue signalling that won't make a real
difference.

~~~
fennecfoxen
It'll make a difference. Finding a bogeyman and making a lot of noise about
making them pay is a great way to launch a political career.

------
Avalaxy
I'm all for sueing companies like Exxon for misleading people and spreading
lies, but I also find it weird that we're trying to blame the big oil
companies like it's all their fault. After all, it is the consumers themselves
who create a massive demand for (cheap) oil.

~~~
javajosh
This is an invalid argument, verging on non sequitor. High demand for a
product does not legitimize fraud about the product, especially when that
fraud _increases demand_. It is irrational to expect individuals to make the
best ethical decisions for the larger group - this is why we have regulation
on food, drugs, energy, etc.

~~~
donatj
I think the flaw in your argument is the assumption that the demand for fossil
fuel is variable depending on anything Exxon has to say. I don’t see an Exxon
ad and think “man I should buy an SUV”.

You wouldn’t blame an electric company on you buying electronic items, it’s
the usefulness of the items themselves that drives the sales.

~~~
javajosh
Demand is a function of many factors, including individual ethical concern and
cost. Exxon has spent billions to reduce both of these effects - ethical
concern is reduced because of the seed of doubt about climate change, and cost
is reduced because of political contributions. Exxon is a great example of a
firm successfully privatizing profit and socializing cost.

------
cryptofits
This case will be recorded in the history books as the court case that decided
the fate of the human race.

~~~
Throw_Away_3759
A case about whether Exxon committed fraud by misleading investors about
climate change will decide the fate of the human race?

------
spodek
I hope justice is served with Exxon, but I also hope people motivate personal
change by realizing that most of us did what Exxon did in the same time on an
individual level.

Growing up in the 70s, I heard about sea level rise and global warming. Nearly
everyone I know flies (and eats meat, drives, etc) more than necessary for
their profit and pleasure and all the things they know contribute, using
excuses similar to Exxon's but translated for themselves.

Anyone who makes excuses for the emissions that puts Americans (and likely
your country if you aren't American) so high up in emissions -- if we think
Exxon should change, shouldn't we?

In this quote, substitute for "Fossil fuel industry" and "Exxon", "we" and see
how well it fits. I'm not talking about blame but taking responsibility for
change now.

> _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._

~~~
afpx
Strongly disagree. Many Americans have understood for 50 years that the _only_
way to stop fossil fuels use would be through government regulations. But,
companies like Exxon have continually used their lobbying muscle to stop it.

~~~
spodek
You state strong agreement then -- justice served with Exxon, as well as
curbing what stops regulation. You mentioned one source of curbing --
companies like Exxon. I cited another -- the people of the U.S. and our
lifestyles.

Independent of people's talk, the U.S. government is well representing our
behavior. There's nothing stopping us from polluting less as individuals. We
don't, saying government should tell us what to do. Politicians know that if
voters say one thing and do another, they'll vote consistently with what they
do.

You want to stop curbing environmental regulation? Show legislators that
voters want it. Right now voters overwhelmingly show they want the opposite.
They fly around the world for vacation when they could go camping, etc.

~~~
pms
It's impossible for the US public to change their mind quickly as a whole.
Would you disagree if I said that the US public is the public that is the most
affected in the world by corporate media and marketing? Even prescription
drugs are advertised here and it's rather shocking to realise that's just
normal here. Similarly, greenwashing and lobbying really work and have impact
on the US public. Nearly half of the US public don't believe in man-made
global warming, a striking difference from the 97% consensus among climate
experts [1]. You must ask yourself where this gap comes from? Big oil is and
will be doing everything to slow down the public from going away from fossil
fuels and the US system is built do support big corporate money.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change)

