
Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by NY Attorney General - rquantz
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html
======
cryptoz
> The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s,
> including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that
> sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is
> whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial
> risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.

I've always wondered about this. Presumably the people leading big oil
companies are not dumb idiots; so why wouldn't they take this knowledge and
prepare in advance? Exxon could be the leading global provider of renewable
energy right now, set to dominate the industry for a century or more. But
instead, they are a crumbling company leading a death march of society and
their own bank accounts. Why? Why would a big company do this? Is it that
really, honestly that hard for people in power to recognize that trying to
prevent progress in their industry is exactly what will get them in trouble,
lose them all of their money and potentially land them in jail? It seems crazy
to me that Exxon didn't pivot their business model 40 years ago. If it was so
obvious to them, why not try to own a new > $1T market for the 21st century?

~~~
roymurdock
There's an interesting phrase that is supposedly thrown around at hedge funds
and major financial institutions when bonus time rolls around: IBGYBG - I'll
be gone, you'll be gone.

For wealthy, older folks it makes more sense in terms of personal wealth to
optimize for short term profits rather than go through the pain of pivoting
and retooling the business in order to set it up for success down the road. So
when the board and major investors ran the cost/benefit analysis of investing
billions and undertaking the risk of shifting towards the renewables market
vs. funding a few studies and paying off some scientists, they rationally
chose the latter.

And they (whoever was making these decisions in the 1970's and 80's) were
successful. They retired wealthy and those who are still around will not be
held accountable today.

Edit: Also, shareholders would say this was and continues to be the right
move. The company has a $350bn market cap today.

We do not have any semblance of an effective credit/tax system for pollution,
global warming, and other such negative externalities. Until we (who? the UN?
the WTO?) put a serious, economic price on pollution that shows up in the
10Ks, we can expect boards/investors to keep making the same choices.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _they rationally chose the latter_

That's the kind of "rationality" that would end up with the whole world in a
smoldering pile of ruins.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
this is why technological immortality will make our society more moral.

if you're going to be around for thousands of years, the only way to avoid
being held accountable for decisions like this is to not make them.

~~~
locopati
Yes. Let's wait for a pipedream to start doing things morally.

------
euroclydon
I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum
products responsible for climate change ridiculous. Oil is so undeniably
important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S.
has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency.

No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has
come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the
market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil".

Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil
companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're
going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them,
not sue them.

~~~
cryptoz
> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum
> products responsible for climate change ridiculous.

That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have
prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's
product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population
buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will
hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused.

> Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this
> point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency.

Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented
alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking,
then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one
basket.

> No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company
> has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to
> exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil".

Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be
more polite here, please.

> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments.
> Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If
> you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then
> tax them, not sue them.

They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because
they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.

~~~
13thLetter
> They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because
> they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.

Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down
that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk"
by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Legalize drugs? Health
risk because of more addicts. Oppose mass surveillance? Health risk because of
injuries from crime and terrorist attacks. Favor green energy? Health risk due
to poisonous materials used in manufacturing solar panels. Et cetera.

Please at least be honest about this. People like the NYAG are unable to get
their agenda through democratically, so they're going to sue their way to
victory instead.

~~~
Goronmon
>Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down
that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk"
by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater.

Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued
because the argument is that they new it was a health risk, and took
deliberate steps to hide that information from the shareholders and the
public. Just like when car companies get sued for hiding information about
safety problems, they are getting sued for hiding the information, not because
people get hurt in car accidents.

~~~
13thLetter
> Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued
> because the argument is that they new it was a health risk,

Gonna stop you right there, because I was objecting to the whole absurd idea
of defining oil as a "health risk." If you want climate change policies, just
argue for the policies, don't try to slip them in through the back door by
redefining the problem as something else.

~~~
Goronmon
No need to be so defensive.

------
rquantz
If you haven't read it, here is an article that discusses some of what Exxon
knew in the 1970s. They did groundbreaking research and determined climate
change was a problem before it was a public issue. Then, instead of doing
something to avert catastrophe, they made the decision to actively thwart
public understanding and government action. It's pretty damning.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-
about-c...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-
climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

