Why exxon mobil is bad

Expert insights, analysis and smart data help you cut through the noise to spot trends, risks and opportunities. Sign in. Accessibility help Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer.

Become an FT subscriber to read: Why ExxonMobil is sticking with oil as rivals look to a greener future Leverage our market expertise Expert insights, analysis and smart data help you cut through the noise to spot trends, risks and opportunities. Join over , Finance professionals who already subscribe to the FT. Choose your subscription. Recognizing this, the Rockefeller Family Fund RFF informed state attorneys general of our concern that ExxonMobil seemed to have failed to disclose to investors the business risks of climate change.

Schneiderman launched his probe that November. This was yet another article written by graduate students at the Rockefeller-funded Columbia Journalism School, which was published in the Los Angeles Times. The article claims that ExxonMobil had evidence that the Columbia Glacier was calving due to climate change, but allowed one of its tankers to put itself in the way of the icebergs anyway. Schneiderman shifted from his original claim that the company was publicly trying to downplay the risks of global warming to a position that the company misrepresented how it was incorporating future climate policies into its business decisions, arguing that it may have inflated the risks climate change posed to its operations.

A judge only recognized that the personal email was used after an in camera review of this log. Of course they did! After reviewing more than 4. It's not my place to tell you when an investigation ends, but it is my place to put an end date on the requests for information and the filing of a complaint.

The lawsuit , following the more than three-years long investigation, claims that ExxonMobil misled investors by underestimating the risks climate change posed to its business in its financial disclosures. During opening statements, ExxonMobil counsel told the court that "the evidence will show that the allegations in the complaint are bizarre and twisted and not connected to the reality of the truth.

Tillerson told the court that during his tenure, ExxonMobil took climate change seriously. Beyond Pesticides, a Washington D. District Judge William G. In the petition, ExxonMobil also seeks to depose environmental attorney Matt Pawa, who initially represented two of the California municipalities in their litigation against the company.

Leading voices from across the country have denounced the ExxonKnew campaign. From the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post , editorial boards have expressed first amendment concerns. A weak legal case against ExxonMobil should never have been among them. Actually, two problems: Projecting the cost of future climate regulations is a terribly tricky business subject to volatile domestic and global politics. Actually, make it three: The figures available to the public projected that climate restrictions would wind up being more stringent; the internal number assumed more modest efforts to limit emissions.

A grand conspiracy would likelier have done the opposite. A PricewaterhouseCoopers director who performed 13 years of audits for Exxon said he was not aware of any attempt to manipulate either cost, though he once inadvertently used the two costs interchangeably in an internal memo. We doubt Ms. James cares all that much if she wins in any case. 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. But as more and more facts emerge, it is becoming increasingly clear that Exxon has been unfairly maligned by a group of activists and lawyers driven by politics but bereft of facts. Using the criminal law to shame and encumber companies that do so is a dangerous arrogation of power.

As the Exxon investigations show, respecting that principle will not lead to positive outcomes in all cases. But it nevertheless demands that the government leave a sizable buffer zone between irresponsible claims and claims it believes may be criminally fraudulent.

It only requires prosecutors to prove a factual error — not fraudulent intent. This is the type of law that should be used with great caution for critical public purposes. There lies the irony in using a law designed to protect investors to go after the oil giant. The investigation won't push Exxon to reevaluate its public stance on climate change so future investors won't be misled. The company did that years ago.

Oil and gas companies insulated themselves from public scrutiny and regulatory action even as the climate crisis accelerated. And any proof that oil companies were insulating themselves from climate policies while misleading the public is likely to become useful fodder in the courtroom.

But governments need to take responsibility and hold the major polluters accountable — and those policies include a broader mix of solutions that limit the fuels Exxon can extract, axing pipeline projects for transportation, limiting its opportunity to export around the world, and even make companies pay for the damages caused to vulnerable communities.

Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all.

Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. The problem with climate shame Shaming individuals has pretty much always been a part of the climate discourse. Supran and Oreskes note the example: In , arguing in defense of five oil companies including ExxonMobil Corp against a lawsuit brought by California cities seeking climate damages, Chevron lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr.

Delivered Fridays. To understand the treachery — the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil — of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures.

No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.