Assume for sake of argument that climate change is catastrophic and that ExxonMobil knew as much. We’re to believe that the real victims here are ExxonMobil’s investors ?
No, just that the investors are the first victims to sue.
NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
61–70 of 123 posts
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our federal government works shockingly well for its size and scope. Dealing with the State Dept to replace a passport at the last minute was one of the best customer service experiences I've had in years. The parts that are not functioning are the legislature and executive branch.
The State Dept is run by the executive branch.
You're right. It would've been more correct for me to say the part that works well is employed and non-political, while the dysfunctional part is composed of mostly elected officials and their appointees.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#63Assume for sake of argument that climate change is catastrophic and that ExxonMobil knew as much. We’re to believe that the real victims here are ExxonMobil’s investors ?
They might not be the greatest victims but they certainly are some of the victims. They invested money in a company whose business model was unsustainable. The company knew that the business model was unsustainable but did not tell them.
In the US publicly traded companies have a duty to let their shareholders know all material risks to the company that the company is aware of.
The response to this is usually “but everyone knows about climate change”. But that is not the case. By now everyone has heard of climate change but many still don't believe it/dispute it. You can call these people stupid and uneducated but they are entitled to the same protections under the law which means that they have a right to be alerted to the potential danger to their investments posed by climate change. I am sure even the more ignorant would pay more attention if the climate change warnings came directly from an oil company they are thinking of investing in.
Furthermore, the NYAG says he has evidence that Exxon knew it was happening as long as 30 years ago. Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#64Does this stuff ever get us anywhere? I just looked at the AG's website and it looks like we're constantly suing every high powered entity in America: https://ag.ny.gov
AFAIK these cases often force companies to stop their misbehavior and offer concessions. For example, have you ever felt that it's not an accident that you don't get advertised speeds from your ISP? https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/18/18146210/charter-spectru...
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#65So it's not that they've endangered the public, or maybe even the environment. It's that they deceived shareholders.
Unfortunately environmental protection laws are relatively weak in this country. Fortunately shareholder protection laws are relatively strong. So the attorney general, like a good lawyer, goes for the cause of action that will give him a high chance of success.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#66Does this stuff ever get us anywhere? I just looked at the AG's website and it looks like we're constantly suing every high powered entity in America: https://ag.ny.gov
Yes. During the Bush administration, for example, it was the NY attorney general Spitzer that held financial institutions accountable for their crimes as the president was determined to let them get away with everything.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#67Assume for sake of argument that climate change is catastrophic and that ExxonMobil knew as much. We’re to believe that the real victims here are ExxonMobil’s investors ?
They might not be the greatest victims but they certainly are some of the victims. They invested money in a company whose business model was unsustainable. The company knew that the business model was unsustainable but did not tell them. In the US publicly traded companies have a duty to let their shareholders know all material risks to the company that the company is aware of. The response to this is usually “but ev…
> Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing.
I was under the assumption that the basic tennets of climate change were well understood by scientists more than 100 years ago. While the climate models have been developed only recently, enabling more accurate predictions, climate science is centuries old as it relates to understanding human impact on our climate.
Climate science was as "settled" in the 80s and 90s as it is today. Yes, the predictions are more accurate today, but the confidence that we are changing Earth's climate was just as strong then as now.
I remember in 1997-8 being taught in US public schools, in no uncertain terms, that we are changing the climate, warming the atmosphere into a runaway greenhouse effect. This was in the US South in a very red state that mostly denies climate science today. The only way to interpret the idea that climate science was "less settled" in the 80s 90s is political. It has been "settled" for 100+ years in rational scientific discourse.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public ) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.
But the possible effect of CO2 on climate was not a secret. It had been widely debated for decades even in 1979. Now, it is true that companies sometimes state widely known information in their annual reports. Things like "the company's profitability could be affected by a change in consumer tastes that reduces demand for our product". (Not followed by any actual analysis of how likely this is, I note.) I assume such…
It's been "not a secret" for a very long time. Scientists were meaningfully speculating on the effect that spilling CO2 into the atmosphere would have since the (very late) 19th century.
Here's an old scientific article talking about it, if you're interested. [PDF] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Amazing that we have had so much time to think about this problem.
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#69“What we are facing now is a person whose crime dwarfs all of the crimes ever committed in human history. We were unable to find a single law applicable to his crime. So we recommend that the crime of Extinction of Life on Earth be added to international law, and that Rey Diaz be tried under it.”
— Cixin Liu, The Dark Forest
Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors
#70>Exxon and other energy companies knew as long ago as 30 years that carbon emissions were becoming perilous to the planet. This is ridiculous. No one knew about climate change 30 years ago. A small number of scientists were aware of the possibility of climate change - it took some 30 years of research, heavily dependent on modeling capability which was only really unlocked in the last decade or so, to come to any sor…
>This is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. I was taught about the carbon cycle, greenhouse gasses, and climate change in a United States public high school in 1993. 26 years ago.
>Meanwhile let's ignore that society, globally, has advanced - technologically and socially - on the back of petroleum fuel.
Sure, but society has provided massive subsidies (both direct and indirect) to carbon-based fuels. Had we not provided those subsidies, society would be much better off.