# Should fossil fuel companies be held liable for RICO violations due to organized climate denial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312 "2015-10-21T01:32:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/1 "2015-10-21T01:32:40Z")
Think Progress has an interesting article about whether ExxonMobil should be held liable for RICO violations. The claim is that ExxonMobil, and possibly others, knew as far back as 1977 that carbon released by burning fossil fuels would heat the planet and that, in spite of this knowledge, funded deliberate disinformation campaigns denying anthropogenic climate change. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/) > [@](#): > > A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who prosecuted and won the massive racketeering case against Big Tobacco thinks the agency should consider investigating Big Oil for similar claims: engaging in a cover-up to mislead the public about the risks of its product. > … > Sharon Eubanks, who now works for the firm Bordas & Bordas, told ThinkProgress that ExxonMobil and other members of the fossil fuel industry could be held liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) if it’s discovered that the companies worked together to suppress knowledge about the reality of human-caused climate change. She said that, considering [recent revelations](http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming) regarding ExxonMobil, the DOJ should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies. > **[Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades...](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/)** > > At a meeting in Exxon Corporation’s headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon... > [@](#): > > “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later. > > It was July 1977 when Exxon’s leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis. > > A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert. > **[What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic](https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/)** > > Back in the 1990's, Exxon was publicly taking the position that the scientific research on global warming was contradictory and too sketchy to act upon. But, at the same time, its own researchers were quietly incorporating some of those scientific... > [@](#): > > Back in 1990, as the debate over climate change was heating up, a dissident shareholder petitioned the board of Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil companies, imploring it to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its production plants and facilities. > ADVERTISEMENT > > The board’s response: Exxon had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company’s “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.” > > Yet in the far northern regions of Canada’s Arctic frontier, researchers and engineers at Exxon and Imperial Oil were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet. > > Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, was leading a Calgary-based team of researchers and engineers that was trying to determine how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations and its bottom line. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/2 "2015-10-21T01:40:21Z")
What, exactly, are the scientifically proven negative impacts on US citizens by this product today. Today. Not what scientists are projecting for the future, but today. How many people in the US can scientists prove have been harmed or killed by climate change? That seems to me to be the challenge and the difference between this and tobacco. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/3 "2015-10-21T01:44:58Z")
How is disinformation racketeering, corruption, or influence? Just go after them for bribing politicians, and the politicians while you’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/4 "2015-10-21T01:48:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What, exactly, are the scientifically proven negative impacts on US citizens by this product today. Today. Not what scientists are projecting for the future, but today. How many people in the US can scientists prove have been harmed or killed by climate change? > > That seems to me to be the challenge and the difference between this and tobacco. Good points. Maybe some sort of statistical case could be made regarding some extreme weather events? Nobody can absolutely prove that \*their \*lung cancer was caused by tobacco. But that seems a lot shakier than the tobacco cases. I suppose it could be argued that they were not only engaging in practices that they believed to be harmful, but they were also engaged in attempting to cover it up. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/5 "2015-10-21T01:49:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > How is disinformation racketeering, corruption, or influence? Just go after them for bribing politicians, and the politicians while you’re at it. Is there proof of bribery? ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/6 "2015-10-21T01:52:51Z")
…so people would have stopped driving their cars had this info come out??? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/7 "2015-10-21T01:54:41Z")
Probably not, but they might have tried to get more fuel-efficient ones. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/8 "2015-10-21T01:57:03Z")
Maybe without the disinformation campaign, the people may have pushed the government to research and support alternative sources of energy. In any case, I don’t see how that would matter in a legal case. They were actively preventing people from getting information about something that was a danger to their well being. Whether people would have acted on that information is secondary. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/9 "2015-10-21T02:02:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What, exactly, are the scientifically proven negative impacts on US citizens by this product today. Today. Not what scientists are projecting for the future, but today. How many people in the US can scientists prove have been harmed or killed by climate change? > > That seems to me to be the challenge and the difference between this and tobacco. > **[Drought Takes $2.7-Billion Toll on California Agriculture](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-takes-2-7-billion-toll-on-california-agriculture/)** > > Scientists say the current drought will cost big in lost crops > [@](#): > > The record-breaking drought in California—brought about by a severe lack of precipitation, especially mountain snows—has exacted a $2.7 billion toll on the state’s economy because of agricultural losses, researchers said Tuesday. > [@](#): > > The relationship between climate change and any drought is a complex one, as many factors feed into creating and perpetuating drought conditions. The clearest impact of warming on drought is when higher temperatures cause more evaporation and increase water demand, as has happened with this drought. California, in fact, recorded its warmest year on record in 2014, followed by its warmest winter ever this year. > **[Effects - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/)** > > Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread... > [@](#): > > Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program: > > Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning. > > Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off. > > Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts. > > Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes. > > Southwest. Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns. Just on the liability of coastal cities dealing with the ocean rise should be enough to justify a lawsuit based on or similar to the RICO law. In this case I think people do not need to die, but then I become more pessimistic when I consider the current levels of Xenophobia in many nations that will cause many to die when they are forced out of their countries; and well, there are more than a few that do think that most of the people coming here are just criminals and murderers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/10 "2015-10-21T04:10:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Drought Takes $2.7-Billion Toll on California Agriculture | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-takes-2-7-billion-toll-on-california-agriculture/) > [@](#): > > The relationship between climate change and any drought is a complex one, as many factors feed into creating and perpetuating drought conditions. > **[Effects - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/)** > > Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread... > [@](#): > > Just on the liability of coastal cities dealing with the ocean rise should be enough to justify a lawsuit based on or similar to the RICO law. > > In this case I think people do not need to die, but then I become more pessimistic when I consider the current levels of Xenophobia in many nations that will cause many to die when they are forced out of their countries; and well, there are more than a few that do think that most of the people coming here are just criminals and murderers. Who said anything about people dying? You’ll never get a conviction on the idea that climate change, and not natural weather variation, has actually caused measurable harm to US citizens today. You can link to any number of articles that _speculate_ about the causes of weather events, but “heat waves and heavy downpours” are not actionable offenses, as those are documented events from centuries past. That is not to say that 50 years hence you might have a case, but now? Not a chance. Dr. Buster, and let me remind you that you are under oath, can you state, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any given weather event has been due to Climate Change caused by disinformation from oil companies? And again, you are under oath. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/11 "2015-10-21T04:15:30Z")
The attorney who won the racketeering case against tobacco companies thinks that it’s worth pursuing, so she must think it could be winnable, or maybe she thinks that they’d settle rather than have their research in the public spotlight. Who knows what discovery could turn up? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/12 "2015-10-21T04:16:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > … > Dr. Buster, and let me remind you that you are under oath, can you state, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any given weather event has been due to Climate Change caused by disinformation from oil companies? And again, you are under oath. Could they prove that any given case of lung cancer was due to smoking? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/13 "2015-10-21T04:23:38Z")
Keep in mind that she’s not talking about suing them for damages to cities or individuals or whatever (at least I don’t think she is). What she’s talking about is racketeering charges, a different thing. She didn’t get the tobacco companies for damages to smokers, she got them for racketeering. Apparently some of their activities in trying to cover up the dangers of smoking opened them up to RICO charges somehow. She’s probably thinking of something similar with ExxonMobil and the others. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/14 "2015-10-21T04:27:11Z")
Just what illegal activities have the oil companies engaged? The only reason they won the tobacco lawsuits is because big tobacco settled. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/15 "2015-10-21T04:31:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [Effects - NASA Science](http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/) > > Who said anything about people dying? You’ll never get a conviction on the idea that climate change, and not natural weather variation, has actually caused measurable harm to US citizens today. You can link to any number of articles that _speculate_ about the causes of weather events, but “heat waves and heavy downpours” are not actionable offenses, as those are documented events from centuries past. > > That is not to say that 50 years hence you might have a case, but now? Not a chance. > > Dr. Buster, and let me remind you that you are under oath, can you state, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any given weather event has been due to Climate Change caused by disinformation from oil companies? And again, you are under oath. That is in any case irrelevant, you are using the same excuse as the tobacco companies ( **and it did not work for them** ), the point was that statistically speaking we are already making things worse (and all that increase in water vapor and energy has to go somewhere once something like a hurricane comes along) and it is clear that the fossil fuel companies did know what they were doing when they funded disinformation and supported politicians that only follow the scientists that today are in their payroll. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/16 "2015-10-21T04:33:05Z")
Two points. First, I generally oppose RICO laws because they’re so widely abused. I’m not going to be hypocritical and call for their use now. Second, while I can easily believe that oil companies have been immoral, I doubt they’ve done anything illegal. Spreading disinformation is not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/17 "2015-10-21T04:33:44Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Just what illegal activities have the oil companies engaged? The only reason they won the tobacco lawsuits is because big tobacco settled. Maybe they’ve bribed people? Maybe there are things that they’d rather not have come out and will settle to prevent them coming out? I don’t know, but this apparently very competent attorney thinks it’s worth pursuing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/18 "2015-10-21T04:34:14Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Just what illegal activities have the oil companies engaged? The only reason they won the tobacco lawsuits is because big tobacco settled. Lying under oath can lead a corporation to that indeed. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/19 "2015-10-21T04:36:59Z")
Have any fossil fuel company representatives lied under oath about climate change? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely curious. Have they ever had to testify before Congress about it? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/20 "2015-10-21T04:40:43Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Maybe they’ve bribed people? > Maybe there are things that they’d rather not have come out and will settle to prevent them coming out? I don’t know, but this apparently very competent attorney thinks it’s worth pursuing. One of the best items that the discovery step against the Tobacco companies and freedom of information requests gave us was a note from an executive talking about their scientist Dr. Seitz being no longer reliable as he was clearly losing his mind. That did not stop the doctor from getting funding at his George Marshall Institute for delivering more “science” that denied that cigarettes were harmful and then jumped to help fossil fuel corporations to deny that they were making a harmful product. > **[Dr Frederick Seitz – This is Not Cool](https://thinc.blog/tag/dr-frederick-seitz/)** > > Posts about Dr Frederick Seitz written by greenman3610 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312.md?page=2)