Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk

The original lawsuit was going to Take Down Exxon (despite all sorts of Warmists, from the supporters to the government agencies filing the suits, using lots of fossil fuels, including from Exxon). Now? The NY Post Editorial Board has thoughts

The incredible collapsing ‘#ExxonKnew’ climate change lie

On Tuesday, the progressive legal war on Exxon will head to trial in a case most notable for … how badly it has fizzled.

It started back in 2016, with “a move many are hailing as a ‘turning point,’ ” as EcoWatch proclaimed: 20 state attorneys general launching an “unprecedented, multi-state effort” to probe and prosecute the oil giant.

The central charge — seemingly bolstered by Pulitzer-nominated journalists: Exxon had for decades hidden “key climate science.”

Actually, only a few AGs — including then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who spearheaded the effort — led any investigations. And today, only two cases exist: the one from the New York AG’s office, and another from the Massachussets AG — which is on hold and likely dead.

So, what’s happening

The claim: Exxon had long known that consuming oil would cause global warming but hid the facts. In fact, the company for decades published findings closely matching mainstream science. No one has ever produced any evidence of a coverup.

Which is why Schneiderman (before the revelation of horrifying personal conduct ended his career) was forced to find a different rationale: Big Oil, he said, might be “overstating” its assets by “trillions,” by failing to account for potential future regulations that restrict fossil fuels.

Oops: The company had warned about the risks of new rules; that’s why a Securities and Exchange Commission probe cleared it of those charges.

And the case that now-AG Letitia James takes to trial Tuesday is a huge comedown from even that claim, charging that Exxon fraudulently used two sets of books to state the risks. The company says it merely releases different estimates for different purposes, with full disclosure.

The charge is not only a far cry from the original #ExxonKnew allegations, it’s also almost certain to fail. Putting the best face on this fact, climate-change warrior Andrew Revkin tweeted Wednesday: “Some lawsuits are fought for the win, some are fought for the documents. The NYS #exxonknew suit is far more likely to be the latter.”

In fact, the entire thing has been a shameless exercise in prosecutorial abuse, from the outrageous harassment of nonprofits whose research the climate-crisis crew dislikes to the ethically dubious private funding of staff in the New York AG’s Office.

They wrap up with

If you have a real case, you don’t have to make up fake ones

So what is AG James trying to accomplish? The “we need to destroy Exxon” thing has been reduced to getting some documents. The State Of NY is more than welcome to stop using fossil fuels for state operations. This was a bullying operation, which Exxon refused to bow down to. It still would have been great had Exxon, and all the other fossil fuels companies, simply refused to sell gas and oil to those states.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk”

  1. Doom and Gloom says:

    I have a great Idea. All the oil companies should pull out of all 20 states and then let the people get in line for 20years to buy an electric car. How about the right do a little CANCELLED action on the left.

    Now I know the oil companies would never do that because they actually care about the million small businesses whose lives rely on their gas stations. Because lets be honest most 7-11 and mini-marts etc. would fold if they didnt sell gasoline and diesel.

    But it would not take long for all those democrats to become republicans if the oil companies pulled out of those 20 states.

    CANCELLED!!!!!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Commenter typed: “…oil companies would never do that because they actually care about the million small businesses whose lives rely on their gas stations.”

      Corporations are not in business to care, but to make profits for their shareholders. If a gas company decided to pull way over 40% of their US market (California! NY! Illinois! Texas! etc), unless tRump eliminated all anti-trust laws, a competitor would move right in. Is that the proposal? Allow all the fossil fuel companies to collude to punish political enemies? That seems so authoritarian.

      • formwiz says:

        Corporations are not in business to care, but to make profits for their shareholders.

        True enough, but the more customers they have, the better. It’s just good business.

      • Doom and Gloom says:

        And you dont think the Cancel culture by the left is AUTHORITARIAN?

  2. Professor Hale says:

    By their own admission, the climate activists believe that using fuels causes harm to the planet, yet they still do it. I think we have found our guilty party.

    The obvious corrective action is to withdraw their products from the market. Taxing it does nothing to reduce the harm. If you aren’t willing to give up using energy, STFU.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Good point. There are a couple of ways to deal with negative externalities (indirect costs) in a free-market system 1) a ban or 2) a “pigovian” tax. In the US we’ve done both to varying degrees. For example, we ban some illicit drugs, which doesn’t work all that well, but we add taxes to tobacco products to regulate their use. One could argue that since tobacco has no functional benefit to a society we could ban it as well, but bans are only partly successful.

      At this time, fossil fuels have a valuable societal benefit in generating electricity, transportation, home and business heating. The negative externalities associated with fossil fuel use are global heating, asthma, other pollutants, cancers, local pollution, spills, extraction accidents etc. Obviously, it’s difficult to factor in what these events cost a society, but just as obviously it’s a cost that is not part of the free-market transaction. Ignoring these real but indirect costs amounts to a huge subsidy for the fossil fuel industry.

      Unless you’re willing to discuss the issue rationally, STFU.

      • Doom and Gloom says:

        Unless you’re willing to discuss the issue rationally, STFU.

        Cute.

        THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF CO2. Certainly not Asthma, pollution, and cancer and whatever else you like to contribute to CO2 that is more in line with other irritants being expulsed via the production of co2.

        However, you on the left contribute POLLUTION which is an entirely different matter to CO2 and try to scare the bejesus out of little boys and girls with the were all going to die a horrible death because of co2.

        If you only had a rational argument for riding the planet of fossil fuels I would be willing to discuss it. BUT you always mark the field, put down the goalposts and then say okay now let’s play a game while placing a blindfold on me and refusing to tell me the rules.

        Its pretty difficult to have a discussion of the issue rationally when you refuse to exactly define what the issue is without bringing in a plethora of outside issues in regards to the GENERATION OF CO2.

        So make up your mind. is it co2 or is it other things expelled by fossil fuels that are at issue? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Its hard to say since you move the goalposts all over the field during any discussion of Climate change and co2.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          The rules are simple. Burning fossil fuels yields CO2 which is causing the planet to heat up. We need to find a palatable way to stop it. One way is the increase the price of burning fossil fuels, making other forms (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, other) of generating energy price competitive.

          As a bonus we would reduce asthma, cancer, local pollution, gas leaks, oil spills, reliance on unstable regimes etc.

          If you deny that CO2 contributes to warming there is little to discuss.

          • formwiz says:

            There are no rules, only science and you have no science on your side.

            We need to find a palatable way to stop it. One way is the increase the price of burning fossil fuels, making other forms (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, other) of generating energy price competitive.

            Well, your side has pretty well demonized nucular, thanks to its monopoly of the media in the 50s and 60s, and the rest is not capable of handling a society’s energy needs.

            As a bonus we would reduce asthma, cancer, local pollution, gas leaks, oil spills, reliance on unstable regimes etc.

            You keep talking about asthma and cancer. Air pollution may aggravate asthma, but it doesn’t cause it, likewise cancer. We’ve got gas leaks and oil spills pretty much under control and, with fracking and other more modern means, which your side opposes, we need no longer rely on unstable regimes, even though your side seems Hell-bent on manufacturing reasons for us to stay there.

            If you deny that CO2 contributes to warming there is little to discuss.

            Exactly. The facts are clear it doesn’t, so shut up and go away.

          • Doom and Gloom says:

            I deny that co2 warming the atmoshpere has anything to do with cancer, asthma, local pollution, gas leaks, oil spills and reliance on unstable regimes.

            The AGW position is that CO2 which is expelled by cows, dogs, humans as well as the burning of fossil fuels and the creation of solar cells, windmills and massive hydrothermal damns and any kind of progress going forward such as using cement to create new infrastructure and a solid foundation for society.

            Your position has been and always continues to be bait and switching co2 to pollution and all the harmful side effects created by pollution. If you want to debate pollution fine. But you continue to use co2 as the start of you sentence and finish with pollution and cancer at the end.

            No wonder your children are HORRIFIED by the AGW crazies applying their Nazi tactics to whip the nice little high steppers into line.

        • Professor Hale says:

          It is obviously all about the money. Just like with the tobacco settlements. it was never about covering societal costs or all those lawyers wouldn’t have gotten a huge cut when they didn’t suffer any harm. Communists always loot the businesses with the profits. They build nothing. The same thing going on in California with PG&E. California has had wildfires every year since before the discovery of electricity, but now the state sues PG&E for a billion dollars for causing a forest fire. It was never about the fires. It was about the billion dollars. Who will pay that? The result… rolling blackouts whenever there are high winds.

      • formwiz says:

        we ban some illicit drugs, which doesn’t work all that well

        Actually, it did, until the Lefties went after children in the middle 60s. Up to then, society’s disapproval was close to universal.

        The negative externalities associated with fossil fuel use are global heating, asthma, other pollutants, cancers, local pollution, spills, extraction accidents etc.

        No, The negative externalities associated with fossil fuel use are local pollution, spills, extraction accidents etc.

        Global heating is nonsense, as has been proven, Asthma and cancers sound more like wishful thinking.

        Unless you’re willing to discuss the issue rationally, STFU.

        In that case, we should never hear from you again.

  3. Doom and Gloom says:

    My wife and I travel the country. Next year we will be making our second trip to the Arctic Ocean in 5 years and then on to Alaska. Yes, you can drive all the way to the Arctic Ocean.

    One thing we have started doing is we bought two electric Bicycles. They are actually a lot of fun and they might very well be the wave of the future. You can go about 10-30 miles on a charge and they range in cost from 500-15000 dollars. Ours were 2499. each and use automatic transmissions rather than shifting for the best battery life because choosing the right gear for the terrain is important to battery life. We get about 20 miles to a charge because being older we use peddle assist which gives us some exercise but at our age, I’m not peddling up giant hills out in the mountains and having a heart attack. 750watt engines let you literally climb steep hills with either NO peddling or a bit of peddling. Your choice.

    I say that to say this. I can see Electric Bicycles becoming the wave of the future and if you don’t own one. I suggest you look into them. They are a great exercise and will go anywhere from 18-40 MPH depending on how much you want to spend on one. We use them to explore when we are camping so we use the kind with big tires and a good suspension system to handle rougher terrain.

    A lot of fun. You can buy a cheap one at Walmart but I would watch out because there are a ton of Chinese rip-offs that last 30 days and your FF’ed when you try to get them repaired.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    It is obviously all about the money. Just like with the tobacco settlements. it was never about covering societal costs or all those lawyers wouldn’t have gotten a huge cut when they didn’t suffer any harm. Communists always loot the businesses with the profits. They build nothing. The same thing going on in California with PG&E. California has had wildfires every year since before the discovery of electricity, but now the state sues PG&E for a billion dollars for causing a forest fire. It was never about the fires. It was about the billion dollars. Who will pay that? The result… rolling blackouts whenever there are high winds.

  5. […] Pirate’s Cove – Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 7297 access attempts in the last 7 days.