The Justice Department’s Prosecution of Exxon—Where Will This Go?
Readers may want to check out the comments on my diatribe about Volkswagen’s brazen criminality, and the discussion of the Justice Department’s prosecution of ExxonMobil. Apparently, a fellow in Australia doesn’t think this action has much merit.
We’ll see how this plays out. The Attorney General in New York thinks his criminal complaint is very strong.
What my Australian friend writes here contains some truth, but it’s loaded with factual error. For example, Exxon admitted in 2006 that it had been funding sham “scientific research” whose purpose was to discredit the notion of climate change, and asserted that they would cease this practice going forward.
Many people in my position would be deeply offended by his last line: “Unlike you, I don’t believe we will experience an exciting apocalypse, so beloved of alarmist advocates, instead I see a long slow evolutionary process spread out over many decades.”
For some reason, I’m just amused by this. Obviously, no decent human being loves the idea of “experiencing an exciting apocalypse.” Again, some people would find this outrageously rude, but I guess, after all this, I’ve gotten a bit hardened to insulting remarks. After all, he’s talking to the guy who was called a “cockroach” on a popular radio show here in the good ol’ US of A.
He’s completely right that a) most people don’t care about this stuff, at least now, and that b) this will spread itself out over many decades. Yet I’m betting that public sentiment will heat up here, perhaps at the same rate as the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. We’ll see.
Craig,
Firstly, allow me to assure you that my remark “exciting apocalypse” wasn’t intended as a personal insult, on the contrary it was intended a reference to your remark “the ultimate climate disaster that we’re now starting to experience” . I was only contrasting our differing viewpoints as to the interpretation of the scientific information currently available.
Nor was I intending to be disrespectful of your viewpoint, after all you could be quite correct !
I’m quite sure you are as concerned as I to avert any catastrophic apocalypse.
Time magazine recently wrote a highly emotive and plaintive article about the people of the Island nation of Kiribati and their fears of becoming submerged as a result of climate change.
I have visited Kiribati several times and although no one could be failed to be moved by their plight, the science just doesn’t support the advocacy. 80% of Pacific and Indian Ocean Island nations show signs of substantial growth, the are actually rising ! Other are readjusting their coastlines which is a completely natural phenomenon . Islands like Kiribati naturally rise and submerge in the Pacific on a regular basis (geological, not human timescale).
As for the Attorney-General of New State (Dem), Eric T. Schneiderman has a long history of highly publicized law suits of dubious merit. Although he enjoyed early success by using a law unique to New York, (and redefining it for another purpose) once the easy prey who would rather pay than fight a war of legal attrition against the State of New York had been exhausted, he then over-reached himself tackling more determined opponents, and the easy victories ended with both Schneiderman and New York State embroiled in series of messy quagmires. ( Peabody, Trump etc)
Eric T. Schneiderman has certainly won some fans for his aggressive activist style as a prosecutor. His grandstanding and publicity seeking style contrasts with his strong well reasoned record legislative record and efficient administrative capability.
Criticism of Schneiderman arises from his seemingly selective choice of targets to pursue. Those close to Schneiderman, particularly political donors and allies, seem to get a “free pass” while he pursues high profile targets, some of whom are his political foes or allegedly failed to contribute to his campaign..
I wouldn’t go so far as The American Spectator and call Eric Schneiderman a “crook”, and demanding an investigation into his conduct, but it does seem that he is politicizing the office of Attorney – General with law suits that have more in common with advancing his image and career than the interests of the people of New York State.
http://spectator.org/articles/54969/eric-schneiderman-crook
In his prosecution of Exxon, Schnerman will be relying on the extremely wide powers of the Martin Act. The US Supreme Court has expressed concern on a number of occasions at the potential for misuse of the Martin Act (and similar acts).
Although an anathema to most climate change activist, the following article does accurately analyze the issues Involved –
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/11/12/ny-attorney-general-schneiderman-targets-exxon-mobil-climate-thuggery-part-1/
Exxon’s own statement in response –
““We unequivocally reject allegations that Exxon Mobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of Exxon Mobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,”
Schneiderman doesn’t dispute or challenge the validity of this statement.
It’s true that in 1997, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond (1993-2004) was a confirmed Global Warming critic and remains so today. He may be proved wrong, but he is entitled to his opinion, and that’s not a crime. ( Especially since he holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering) . In contrast, Exxon’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, supports climate change action.
At the worst, all any investigation could establish would be that that over the decades the Exxon’s senior management had actively taken part in an ongoing debate about a growing body of sometimes conflicting scientific information.
To presume otherwise would be to demand corporate executives be required to have a greater gift of prophesy than scientists or legislators.
My real objection to Eric Schneider is his use of creative litigation to usurp the function of legislatures and public political process. The increase in methods of achieving changes in public policy by circumventing legislatures, decreases the authority of those legislatures and weakens representative government.