Exxon sues the suers in climate-change case

As climate-change lawsuits against the oil industry mount, Exxon Mobil Corp. is taking a bare-knuckle approach rarely seen in legal disputes: It’s going after the lawyers who are suing it. Bloomberg reported that Exxon has put at least 30 people and groups in its crosshairs as it seeks to push back against what it says is an effort by lawyers, state officials and environmental groups to smear the company.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions is if our administration denies climate change and axes all research, can US company be sued

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exxon's and other oil companies own scientists knew as far back as 1970's that the burning of fossil fuels could potentially affect the climate. Instead of changing it, they took a page from the tobacco industry and did everything they could to create confusion about the subject of climate change and minimize any connection to the burning of oil.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are also attempting to distract from the fact it is one of the worst performing stocks over the last 10 years.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joanna said:

They are also attempting to distract from the fact it is one of the worst performing stocks over the last 10 years.

No, since Feb 13, 2008 Exxon has declined 15% in price and paid about $22 in dividends total. That yields a 10 year return of 1.7%

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exxon is what it does, not what it says. Exxon's actions have shown loud and clear that they are not part of the solution of Global Climate Change, but a problem

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a desperate move to me. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would call it a smart strategy in which Exxon outspends the harmed in court. Far away from it that I support this move. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnAtronis said:

Questions is if our administration denies climate change and axes all research, can US company be sued

No. No they can't. Exxon is a business. They exist to make money. For their shareholders. They are obligated to act in the shareholders' best interest--not in the best interest of some treehuggers out to save the planet. It's not against the law. They can't be sued for capitalizing on the very thing that keeps the lights on for the suers. It is such a litigious day and age we live in. It's tiresome. Exxon is trying to protect itself. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's clear that there has been some collaborative efforts to target Exxon. They likely have a case here. Exxon has documents that show certain California governing bodies have disavowed climate change when it's in their best interest to do so. But it's a world ender when it's in their best interest to say that. These lawsuits, on both sides, do more to move both sides further apart. Very polarizing and unproductive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardily support Exxon's "bare-knuckle" legal approach in this matter. I hope they break the climate change hoaxers. Climate change is a total hoax. It was invented in the UN in order to ultimately create a "carbon tax" to support a One World Government. If you think the US government is expensive at $4.5 Trillion per year wait until you see the full flower of global government.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny that the greedy companies are been attacked by false theories by bloodsucking lawyers controlled by self-seeking greenies. The carbon tax is going to cause poverty and problems for the smaller countries and the lower social societies. When it was introduced in Australia we were playing 11% but when they removed it they only removed 9.8%.  According to the L, Core in 2007 Australia now has one-metre ocean rise but we haven,t.  According to Penny Wong and Greg Combet,  2007 Australia will not have any heavy rainfall for 100 years so the NSW Government spent 100 million dollars to build a saltwater filter plant that has not been turned on and is costing households a thousand dollars a year to keep the new owners happy with their investment. Is this what the Greenies want? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. HITLERson , tilerson, was extremely unsuccessful in the past , one of the last cases was exxon vs Venezuela,  xom asked from Venezuela 12,5 Billions dollar for "poor evaluations of assets in Venezuela" , a court of NYC gave $ 2.5 Billions to XOM, it was not the only legal case XOM loss around the world, all under Hitler-son management, now as foreign secretary is going around the world with attacks to those that tarnished his management , Venezuela and other.  this last campaign seems that will give XOM a worst effect with the binomial of business inspired and political reinforced through the Trump Government.  The role follow the rules of the Big Losers, Hit One and Receives TWO PUNCHES!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Themezas said:

Mr. HITLERson , tilerson, was extremely unsuccessful in the past , one of the last cases was exxon vs Venezuela,  xom asked from Venezuela 12,5 Billions dollar for "poor evaluations of assets in Venezuela" , a court of NYC gave $ 2.5 Billions to XOM, it was not the only legal case XOM loss around the world, all under Hitler-son management, now as foreign secretary is going around the world with attacks to those that tarnished his management , Venezuela and other.  this last campaign seems that will give XOM a worst effect with the binomial of business inspired and political reinforced through the Trump Government.  The role follow the rules of the Big Losers, Hit One and Receives TWO PUNCHES!   

Perhaps the name "Hitler" is best if left to its original owner, lest someone get the wrong idea that we think so lightly of who he was that we can so easily equate it with the likes of Tillerson.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, agree. Tillerson is definitely not Hitler. In fact, he's nobody. He's been sidelined entirely by Trump. The State Department barely exists, which means that we can't do any real diplomacy because everyone knows that no one will listen to Tillerson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0