# 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:** 2
**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, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/21 "2015-10-21T04:41:36Z")
One thing this lady has going for her is that smoking cigarettes, while bad for people, is also essential for the global economy run smoothly, just like oil. I mean, without tobacco, how would we…? I mean, who ever benefitted from the burning of fossil fuels? ---
**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, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/22 "2015-10-21T04:44:32Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > 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? In a perfect world that would be the next step, to subpoena the guys to clarify under oath when they knew about their product’s danger and when did they knew about their executives financing denier groups and scientists. > **[Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)** > > Documents show Willie Soon, researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center, received total of $1.25m from groups that included Koch brothers foundation > [@](#): > > A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. > > Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. > > According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal. > > The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules. ---
**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, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/23 "2015-10-21T04:49:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing this lady has going for her is that smoking cigarettes, while bad for people, is also essential for the global economy run smoothly, just like oil. I mean, without tobacco, how would we…? > > I mean, who ever benefitted from the burning of fossil fuels? Until one curls up and dies from cancer, emphysema, hearth disease etc. Or in the case of the harm from fossil fuel emissions, **also** cancer emphysema, hearth disease. > **[heal\_report\_the\_unpaid\_health\_bill\_how\_coal\_power\_plants\_make\_us\_sick\_final.pdf](https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_report_the_unpaid_health_bill_how_coal_power_plants_make_us_sick_final.pdf)** > > 4.88 MB (PDF file, one should not forget that besides the harm observed and the worse effects in the long run, people are also being affected directly by the current emissions) ---
**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, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/24 "2015-10-21T04:52:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Lying under oath can lead a corporation to that indeed. Was the science settled? No. No perjury. ---
**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, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/25 "2015-10-21T04:55:27Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Was the science settled? No. No perjury. Again, just the same excuse, it did not work before. The preponderance of evidence was what was guiding the prosecutions. What was very important was that the abuse of science and funding of doubt was lost to the Tobacco companies. ---
**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, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/26 "2015-10-21T04:55:50Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Was the science settled? No. No perjury. Did they believe that the science was settled, but said otherwise? If so, perjury. Hard to prove, but perjury. ---
**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, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/27 "2015-10-21T04:59:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing this lady has going for her is that smoking cigarettes, while bad for people, is also essential for the global economy run smoothly, just like oil. I mean, without tobacco, how would we…? > > I mean, who ever benefitted from the burning of fossil fuels? Our coastal cities and ports are also essential for the global economy to run smoothly, as is a healthy ocean. However difficult it may be to replace fossil fuels with something else, replacing those cities and ports, and fixing the oceans, will be more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/28 "2015-10-21T05:23:24Z")
Clarification: Think Progress reports on the comments of Sharon Eubanks, who ran the DOJ’s tobacco litigation team. She thinks the DOJ should _consider_ charging Exxon under RICO. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. I have difficulty getting my head around this. Obviously there are some free speech issues. I understand that RICO is rather broad. Let’s say that ChemCo sold a pesticide containing DDT that was labeled, “Safe for bird shells: save the Earth!” It was false and misleading (DDT hurts bald eagle eggs), but it doesn’t harm the consumer. It harms something that the consumer might care about. That sounds to me like fraud. And if there’s a conspiracy involved it sounds like RICO. So the fact that third parties are involved in the hypothetical Exxon case may not matter so much. Damages? Damages would be to the consumer who purchased more gasoline than they otherwise would have. Hoo boy. I wouldn’t want to pound the facts or law on this case. Should there be an investigation though? Are subpoenas appropriate? I do believe that any use of RICO should cause ears to prick: the statute is constitutionally dubious according to the opinions of many. ETA: I think that writing an internal DOJ memo is appropriate. Because the issue is huge. I’m guessing that there would not be a clear way forward though. ---
**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, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/29 "2015-10-21T05:49:59Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Clarification: Think Progress reports on the comments of Sharon Eubanks, who ran the DOJ’s tobacco litigation team. She thinks the DOJ should _consider_ charging Exxon under RICO. > … Right. That’s what the article said and it’s what I quoted, including your highlighted word “consider”. I’m not sure what needed clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Construct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Construct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Construct)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/30 "2015-10-21T06:12:43Z")
There’s also a huge difference between tobacco products and oil. Tobacco isn’t needed for life or health, and plenty of people get by totally fine without it. Oil, on the other hand, is the lifeblood of the world and of modern civilization. Oil shocks cripple the economy and comprehensively change our way of life. Oil is the single most important product in the world, and messing with the oil system so you can score some brownie points with the penguins is a terrible idea. ---
**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, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/31 "2015-10-21T06:17:36Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > There’s also a huge difference between tobacco products and oil. Tobacco isn’t needed for life or health, and plenty of people get by totally fine without it. Oil, on the other hand, is the lifeblood of the world and of modern civilization. Oil shocks cripple the economy and comprehensively change our way of life. Oil is the single most important product in the world, and messing with the oil system so you can score some brownie points with the penguins is a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. It’s a good thing that no one is doing that, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/32 "2015-10-21T06:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > …Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU… WILL… ATONE!.. Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) in _Network_ ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/33 "2015-10-21T06:20:20Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > There’s also a huge difference between tobacco products and oil. Tobacco isn’t needed for life or health, and plenty of people get by totally fine without it. Oil, on the other hand, is the lifeblood of the world and of modern civilization. Oil shocks cripple the economy and comprehensively change our way of life. Oil is the single most important product in the world, and messing with the oil system so you can score some brownie points with the penguins is a terrible idea. Again, the beneficiaries are us, penguins are an afterthought. Here is once again Republican scientist Richard Alley explaining again how silly is the idea that the change will cripple the world economy: [QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] ---
**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, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/34 "2015-10-21T08:03:14Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Did they believe that the science was settled, but said otherwise? If so, perjury. Hard to prove, but perjury. No. Firstly, just who is they? Secondly, even if they believed that the science was settled, the science still hadn’t been settled. Please point out the specific instances where you believe perjury occurred. ---
**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, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/35 "2015-10-21T08:05:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, just the same excuse, it did not work before. The preponderance of evidence was what was guiding the prosecutions. What was very important was that the abuse of science and funding of doubt was lost to the Tobacco companies. What prosecutions that led to convictions? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/36 "2015-10-21T11:27:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That seems to me to be the challenge and the difference between this and tobacco. Does a RICO conviction require proof that anyone was harmed? ---
**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, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/37 "2015-10-21T11:35:38Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Is there proof of bribery? There is overwhelming proof of bribery. Unfortunately it’s a legal form of bribery. The disinformation campaign was legal also, protected by free speech (some people would say free speech covers the bribery also). But if you’re going to pointlessly prosecute the fossil fuel industry you might as well go after them on the bribery issue instead of taking on free speech directly. ---
**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, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/38 "2015-10-21T13:46:23Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > No. Firstly, just who is they? Secondly, even if they believed that the science was settled, the science still hadn’t been settled. Please point out the specific instances where you believe perjury occurred. You are the one who mentioned perjury. I was responding to your hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/39 "2015-10-21T13:51:17Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Does a RICO conviction require proof that anyone was harmed? It requires proof of an underlying crime (at least two within ten years, in fact). And those crimes require proof of harm, or at least intent to harm. The oil companies might be guilty of mail or wire fraud (which were the underlying crimes that tied the tobacoco RICO suits together). For mail fraud the prosecution must prove the intent to "induce a false belief and resulting action to the advantage of the misleader and the disadvantage of the misled.” United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1982). I am not sure that the indirect disadvantage of the misled (future rising ocean levels and what not) is sufficient. It’s a pretty big leap over the direct disadvantage of developing lung cancer. ---
**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, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/40 "2015-10-21T13:53:42Z")
Here’s an interesting wrinkle, from Bernie Sanders. Whether you like him or not, he may have a point. [http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-probe-into-exxon-mobil-claims-on-climate-change](http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-probe-into-exxon-mobil-claims-on-climate-change) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today asked the Department of Justice to investigate potential fraud by Exxon Mobil Corp. over conflicts in what it knew and what it told the public and shareholders about the cause of climate change. Notice the word “shareholders”. Potential danger to the climate could potentially lead to heavy regulation of fossil fuels, which could have a dramatic affect on share prices. If they were aware of this potential and didn’t tell their shareholders and, even worse, actively ran a disinformation campaign, couldn’t that be a problem? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312.md?page=1) [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=3)