More on the ExxonMobil / Climate Change Criminal Investigation
Here’s a note I thought I would share from Greenpeace on the litigation against ExxonMobil re: their understanding, which has been in place for as long as 40 years, of the role that fossil fuel consumption would inevitably play in destroying the planet via climate change.
I know there are people who think this is baseless, and represents “grandstanding” on the part of the attorneys general involved in the case, as well as the SEC. I happen not to see it that way.
It’s abundantly clear that the fossil fuel industry will do anything within its massive power to make it possible for them to retain dominance in the energy industry for as long as possible, and that some of these actions are nefarious.
Nefarious, perhaps, but are they criminal in the strictest sense under the statutes of U.S. law? I actually don’t now, but it looks like we’re going to find out; this case is going to be pursued aggressively.
Craig –
We need a clean, renewable future for our energy if we’re going to avoid a climate catastrophe. But Exxon’s climate denial is holding us back.
Exxon has known the truth — that the fossil fuels it peddles lead to climate change — for almost forty years. But instead of taking action to prevent a catastrophe, the company spent decades pushing climate denial.
Exxon needs to be held accountable! Join the thousands of people telling the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon for possible wrongdoing in hiding the full truth of what it knew about climate change.
Major fossil fuel companies like Exxon have big pockets — and they can afford to pour money into lobbyists and research to create doubt over climate science.
The New York and Massachusetts Attorneys General have launched investigations into Exxon for possible fraudulent misrepresentations about what the company knew about climate change. Reportedly, the Security Exchange Commission just launched its own investigation. Now we need you to put the pressure on the Department of Justice to do the same.
A massive hurricane caused unprecedented death and destruction in Haiti. Tens of thousands in Louisiana lost their homes in a thousand-year-flood. Arctic ice is melting, seas are rising, and no one will be left unaffected.
These climate catastrophes should have been avoided. We need action on climate change, not climate denial.
Don’t let Exxon get away with its climate lies. Take action today.
Thank you,
Naomi Ages
Climate and Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace USA
I support your passion Naomi.
Unfortunately the renewable energy debate has become distorted worldwide having now morphed into another debate which is the greenhouse gasses debate, and as a result collectively people are inadvertently backing themselves into a very uncomfortable corner because the two subjects (1. current format renewable energy technologies and the future) and (2. the science and technologies necessary to permanently reverse greenhouse gasses to irrelevant levels and the future), have no relevance whatsoever to each other.
Many people worldwide who have a keen interest in energy technology have mistakenly been coerced by incessant and often near hysterical media into believing that there is an axiomatic interdependence between the two subjects, however this connection is unfounded in science, and this very important distinction needs to be examined in detail and clearly understood by ordinary people as we move forward towards clean, safe, abundant, cost effective power generation science and solutions that entirely eliminate fossil fuel generation.
So your opening sentence, and I am quoting here: “We need a clean, renewable future for our energy if we’re going to avoid a climate catastrophe.”; is not only unjustifiable and misleading for ordinary people, it actually devalues the real scientific energy technology imperatives necessary to entirely eliminate the worlds dependency on fossil fuel generation by advancing untrue information that renewable energy generation (in its current formats) is capable in solving this critical global problem, and that is a dangerous and distorted view point that is crippling the effectiveness of the greenhouse gasses debate.
There is an important role to play for renewable energy technologies, I am involved in this sector as a manufacturer and RE solutions engineering company owner, but it is not connected at any level with the critically important (but separate) greenhouse gasses debate Naomi.
All the best for your efforts and keep up the good work, but please learn more about global greenhouse gasses science and solutions Naomi, and I look forward to reading future posts from you about future energy science and generation technologies essential to permanently reverse and maintain greenhouse gasses at insignificant levels and at the same time provide abundant power to all people and those global new age energy intensive industries desperately needed.
Lawrence Coomber
Naomi,
Your passionate advocacy may make an excellent political address.You may even use as an manifesto to introduce new legislation, but so far you have not nominated any statue which has been broken by Exxon (certainly no criminal statute).
The US DOJ,and SEC have not initiated an investigation, and certainly are not considering any charges against Exxon.
The SEC and DOE have a statuary duty do consider the feasibility and assess that validity of all complaints referred to them by elected members of Congress,no matter how misguided or ill-conceived.
This is all that has happened here. The SEC and DOJ received letters from certain legislators in compliance with their statuary obligations will undertake the process of a assessing the value of the complaint(s).
In common with the overwhelming number of lawyers experienced in this area, I know of no law or Statute broken by Exxon in regard to this issue.
But, I’m always willing to be enlightened ! Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant statute ?
Though there are several potential legal approaches, it seem the preferred one is the statutes surrounding securities fraud. The allegation is that Exxon deliberately misled investors as to the value of their assets. This is addressed in the Martin Act, as described here: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2015/11/13/prosecute-exxonmobil/.
Craig,
Your interpretation of the ‘Martin Act’, betrays your lack of legal training.
Although the act is certainly astoundingly wide, the Martin Act still requires a standard of evidence that simply doesn’t exist.
The Act doesn’t also overturn a fundamental principle of law forbidding judges to speculate, or allow speculation as evidence.
Secondly, to apply the Martin Act, the prosecution must have a genuine complainant who suffered demonstrable loss. (the public interest argument is inapplicable).
Eric Scheiderman has no genuine complainant, and given that for the entire period the case covers the main preoccupation absorbing oil shareholders, government, and nearly everyone was the threat of oil depletion due to ‘peak oil’, it makes a nonsense to suggest that oil would be less valuable, due to a lack of demand.
There still is no lack of demand caused by awareness of climate change, but oil prices have been affected by a dramatic increase in production.
Schneiderman has backed away from using the Martin Act and his amendments and delays to pleadings reveal a desperate effort to prevaricate in the hopes of a face saving withdrawal.
There is no law, including the Martin Act, that insists a director accept one expert opinion over another. This would require directors to become prophets.
The directors of Exxon conservatively valued Exxon’s assets, and have been proved correct in their valuation.
There is just no case to answer. The courts do not, and constitutionally can not, be a method of effecting legislation unable to be passed in the legislature.