I still maintain that the thing for Exxon to do is stop selling their products to the state government of the People’s Republik Of California, if not pull out of the state altogether. Let’s see how Californian’s like it. But, they want to sue
Exxon sues California over new laws requiring corporate climate disclosures
ExxonMobil has filed suit in federal court challenging two California laws that would require the oil giant to report the greenhouse emissions resulting from the use of its products globally.
The 30-page complaint, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues that the laws violate the company’s free speech rights by requiring it to “trumpet California’s preferred message even though ExxonMobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided.”
Senate Bill 253, the 2023 legislation known as the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, requires the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations by this year to mandate public and private companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to begin publicly disclosing their emissions across three “scopes.” (snip)
ExxonMobil contends that the legislative history shows that the bills seek to “place disproportionate blame on companies like ExxonMobil for being large and for the avowed purpose of spurring public opprobrium,” according to the lawsuit.
“California may believe that companies that meet the statutes’ revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change, but the First Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint,” the complaint said.
Well, we’ll see how that goes.
Filipinos sue Shell, say climate change worsened typhoon
Philippine victims of a 2021 typhoon are seeking compensation from energy giant Shell for deaths and damage that they say were intensified by climate change partly resulting from the oil and gas company’s carbon emissions.
Shell says it is not legally liable for the disaster wreaked by 2021 Super Typhoon Odette, known as Typhoon Rai internationally. It killed more than 400 people and was the second-most costly storm in Philippine history.
The nearly 70 Filipinos who lost family members or suffered injuries or damage sent a “letter before action” this past week to Shell seeking an unspecified amount of compensation. If the company does not provide a satisfactory response, they say they plan to file a lawsuit in Britain in mid-December. (snip)
Groups supporting the effort — Greenpeace Philippines, the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice and the green energy transition group Uplift — said they focused on Shell because of its “high historic emissions and early knowledge of the causes and effects of climate change.”
In other words, it’s an astroturfed climalawfare suit. Shell should stop selling their product in the Philippines, and Filipinos can watch their energy prices skyrocket.
Hey, the Pyrite State has seen 29.1% of new vehicles sold be zero emission cars, so this must be what they want, right?
The petroleum industry should send California an invoice for the improved standard of living that their products make possible.
Exxon should stop selling their products to teach the world a lesson!! Of course, other oil giants would take their place. Exxon investors may sue as well, having invested in a company that sells oil.
Yes!! Collectively, these industries have been largely responsible for the growth of the modern world!!! And they’ve made trillions for themselves and investors!
At the same time, oil, gas and coal companies have known for decades that their products are the cause of global warming. These products, even when used as directed, are also dangerous pollutants, responsible for smog, acid rain and the resulting damages – cancers, asthma, deterioration of surfaces, defoliation etc. Who should pay? ONLY We, The People?
Youse guys surely are aware of the concepts of negative externalities and the “tragedy of the commons”, right.
No, they didn’t “know”, as that has yet to be verified through evidence
We’ve come to expect Science Deniers to stamp their little feet and deny what is known.
There is more evidence for CO2 causing global warming (lots!) than for the existence of a god (none!).
Do you believe in God above??
JL One Note,
What evidence would you consider to verify that CO2 is causing global warming?
So Rimjob what “evidence” would you offer to verify that CO2 is causing global warming?
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
BTW CumBreath, do you believe in God, and if so what evidence do you have to support their existence?
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
The falsification of the other hypotheses on warming, a historical record that shows when CO2 rose, the temperature rose (several periods in the past were contradictory)..
The other, and probably the most important issue, is even if it’s found to be solely CO2, or some other reason, is where’s the crisis?
Thanks! You need evidence to support the alternate hypotheses to the theory that greenhouse gas-caused global warming before the alternates could be falsified.
What you call the most important issue, the potential crises that could result from warming, is irrelevant to the theory itself.
Are you admitting that the theory is supported by evidence?
Rimjob: “You need evidence to support the alternate hypotheses to the theory that greenhouse gas-caused global warming before the alternates could be falsified.”
Well, apparently you don’t.
Do you just keep making up shit as you go along?
It is hilarious and proves you haven’t a clue about that of which you write.
What? Another Rimjob deflection?
Translation: Rimjob has no evidence at all.
Exxon owns no refineries in Cali.
They do own wells,and have been trying to unload them but Boone wants them
The total amount of branded gasoline that Exxon sells in Cali is 5%
I still say ….. That Teach should look before he leaps into debate.
Dana EV sales nationwide will total about 1 million vehicles. Sales are held back because each year EVs cost less and perform better. So many sales will be delayed.
1st Teslas the 2 seat roadster are now about $12000 and that includes free refueling at all supercharger stations.their batteries will be at about 90%.yhry are considered finished at 80% but of course just have 20% less range than when new. That is like 10 years of free fuel
Incorrect as usual, johnnie bo6y.
—
“2008 Tesla Roadster
Original Price: When new, the 2008 Tesla Roadster was sold for around $98,000.
Average Current Price: As of late 2024 and 2025, the average price for an original Roadster in good condition is in the $50,000 to $70,000 range.”
—
Perhaps it is you who should look up the facts before posting this garbage.
80% of those first Tesla roadsters are still on the road avg age 12 years
Prove you believe in global warming. Go to Nepal wearing only shorts, tee shirts, and flip flops. Normal people can wear clothing designed for freezing environments.
That is a stupid remark, even for you.
We’ll mark you down as a Science Denier. Makes you easier to ignore!!
Temp today in Katmandu today was 65 degrees F
The avg high in October is 77 to 79 F
Tell me, Wylie that you never had a geography class and that you have never been outside the USA