Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#111

Post by Excel_Wizard »

spodek wrote: post #46

The sad irony is that the pattern of - knowing the science enough to know they're contributing to others suffering - knowing what might happen with reasonable certainty - but compartmentalizing that awareness internally to avoid acting - hiding it externally - and keeping doing what they were doing describes the reactions of most individuals about climate change.

The moral debate around climate change should center around what you just said. Either we are all compartmentalizing it, or we all honestly convinced of "no harmful effects worth worrying over." Most people that care about climate change have a lot of cognitive dissonance, trying to hold our institutions to a high standard but unable to act in a meaningful way.

Personally I believe that the amount of human suffering that will be caused by climate change will be small, but I'm unable to really discern whether motivated reasoning lead me to this conclusion. The evidence presented by both sides about the amount of human suffering that will be caused is highly questionable.

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#112

Post by matthewdgreen »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #7

At first blush, this seems like rough justice to me. Based on cynical assumptions, I'm guessing that the NY AG actually has an axe to grind about ExxonMobil's political/PR efforts regarding climate change, but couldn't pursue them because of First Amendment protections. And so the AG is grasping at other legal straws within the same general topic area.

Lying to investors is a serious crime. What you're saying is that Exxon actually committed a much more serious set of bad acts -- acts that may be constitutionally protected -- and that "lying to investors" doesn't seem as serious when compared with Exxon's real bad acts. But that's insane. It's like saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted for arson if setting someone's house on fire also kills them.

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#113

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #112
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #7

At first blush, this seems like rough justice to me. Based on cynical assumptions, I'm guessing that the NY AG actually has an axe to grind about ExxonMobil's political/PR efforts regarding climate change, but couldn't pursue them because of First Amendment protections. And so the AG is grasping at other legal straws within the same general topic area.

Lying to investors is a serious crime. What you're saying is that Exxon actually committed a much more serious set of bad acts -- acts that may be constitutionally protected -- and that "lying to investors" doesn't seem as serious when compared with Exxon's real bad acts. But that's insane. It's like saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted for arson if setting someone's house on fire also kills them.

Sorry, let me clarify. My impression from reading the article was that Exxon's communications to shareholders weren't materially lies in any relevant legal sense. I.e., that trying to prosecute them is at the very least a legal stretch, or at worst a case of malicious prosecution.

If I misunderstood the article or missing something crucial in it, I apologize.

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#114

Post by inlined »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #91
inlined wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they’re using an interesting legal strategy here. They can use shareholder fraud to have legal standing to pull them into court, but the case prema facie rests on the acceptance of climate change.

Yes. I agree. It's the Al Capone strategy. But the fact remains, shareholders are more protected than the environment and/or the public. We're 20 yrs into the 21 century FFS. You'd think we'd woken up already.

Who else would sue? The EPA, which is currently headed by a self-professed climate change denier?

I would be surprised if the NY AG didn’t run for president some day. They clearly seem intent on finding creative ways to do others’ jobs. E.g. the sting on supplements that’s didn’t contain their supposed ingredients (FDA, which should at least close loopholes in this kind of fraud), promises to prosecute Trump for tax evasion (IRS), and fraud over climate change (EPA)

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#115

Post by matthewdgreen »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #113
matthewdgreen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying to investors is a serious crime. What you're saying is that Exxon actually committed a much more serious set of bad acts -- acts that may be constitutionally protected -- and that "lying to investors" doesn't seem as serious when compared with Exxon's real bad acts. But that's insane. It's like saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted for arson if setting someone's house on fire also kills them.

Sorry, let me clarify. My impression from reading the article was that Exxon's communications to shareholders weren't materially lies in any relevant legal sense. I.e., that trying to prosecute them is at the very least a legal stretch, or at worst a case of malicious prosecution. If I misunderstood the article or missing something crucial in it, I apologize.

I guess that will be up to the courts to decide. I'm guessing Exxon will argue strenuously that this is true, there will be more discovery to decide whether this is accurate, and (in a perfect world) the right thing will happen :)

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#116

Post by ThomPete »

marmaduke wrote: post #102
ThomPete wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple and my guess is that the AG wont win it (neither do they care to) Unless it can be demonstrated scientifically that humans are the primary cause of climate change (despite what you hear that causality is not established) I don't think there is any case what so ever unless some weird inconsequential settlement. Also A life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. So sure there…

> life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. This is downright silly. Sure I have a cellphone, car but I don't live for those things. I live for the people around me, and they are not made of fossil fuel.

You don't just have a cellphone. You have ambulances, you have food, you have medicine, you have heat, you have buildings, you have more or less 80% of your surroundings based on fossil fuels. In other words, there would be much less people around you to live for if it wasn't for fossil fuels.

It's silly to claim you can live without which is why we don't and aren't even close to doing that in the rich countries.

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#117

Post by WorldMaker »

ThomPete wrote: post #116
marmaduke wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. This is downright silly. Sure I have a cellphone, car but I don't live for those things. I live for the people around me, and they are not made of fossil fuel.

You don't just have a cellphone. You have ambulances, you have food, you have medicine, you have heat, you have buildings, you have more or less 80% of your surroundings based on fossil fuels. In other words, there would be much less people around you to live for if it wasn't for fossil fuels. It's silly to claim you can live without which is why we don't and aren't even close to doing that in the rich countries.

We've had the technology to do all of that without fossil fuels for decades. We are close to doing it in rich countries today, despite both active opposition and the usual passivity of the status quo. Renewable energy sources are now cheaper than non-renewables, across the board, regardless of subsidies in either direction. England for the first time since the Industrial Revolution generated more power with renewable sources than fossil fuels this year. Norway, an oil exporter, is on a path to be entirely fossil fuel free soon inside the country's borders. Germany and even the US have also had periods where large amounts of the country's energy grids were entirely renewable.

It's silly to claim we are entirely reliant on fossil fuels for all our modern conveniences, when everything but cars/trucks/shipping is mostly energy source independent and the grid is overall greener than it has ever been in decades, and getting greener. (And we certainly have the technology to solve cars/trucks/shipping today, too.)

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#118

Post by WorldMaker »

wmf wrote: post #61
mrosett wrote: post #58

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.

Also, the most likely set of victims to win in the current political climate.

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#119

Post by ThomPete »

WorldMaker wrote: post #117
ThomPete wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't just have a cellphone. You have ambulances, you have food, you have medicine, you have heat, you have buildings, you have more or less 80% of your surroundings based on fossil fuels. In other words, there would be much less people around you to live for if it wasn't for fossil fuels. It's silly to claim you can live without which is why we don't and aren't even close to doing that in the rich countries.

We've had the technology to do all of that without fossil fuels for decades. We are close to doing it in rich countries today, despite both active opposition and the usual passivity of the status quo. Renewable energy sources are now cheaper than non-renewables, across the board, regardless of subsidies in either direction. England for the first time since the Industrial Revolution generated more power with renewable…

You can call it silly all you want it doesn't change the facts.

We aren't close to doing anything even in rich countries. Wind and solar is less than 1% of world energy. And even in countries that are rich the cost is pushed onto the consumers just ask Germany.

https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_...

Re: NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

#120

Post by antisthenes »

torpfactory wrote: post #60
thaumaturgy wrote: post #21

A likely factor in this lawsuit is the excellent investigative series done by InsideClimate News. They were a finalist for a Pulitzer for this series. Part [1] covers the beginnings of Exxon's own climate research in the late 70s, and the findings of their scientists, which was approximately accurate to modern climate behavior today, 40 years later. Back in 1979, Exxon outfitted some of their ships with equipment to…

Thank you for posting. It is very important to put into context how badly fossil fuel companies may have knowingly screwed us.

It's also important to put in context that they were busy screwing us while a large chunk of the new generations haven't even been born
Post reply on HN