# 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:** 4
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/61 "2015-10-21T15:59:31Z")
Yes. But (bear in mind it’s been a while since I had to study Business Organizations) there must be harm shown. The shareholders have not suffered any harm because they could disgorge their holdings today without taking a loss. ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/62 "2015-10-21T16:09:18Z")
So the more successful they are with their misinformation campaigns, the less likely they are to be prosecuted. That seems perverse. I’m not saying it’s not true, just that it’s wrong. How about if insiders have sold shares while misleading the public? Could that be an issue? ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/63 "2015-10-21T16:32:42Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Rational people will oppose this action because: > > 1)It will harm the economy Not so. You forget that the change will benefit the economy for the simple reason that it will harm the economy more if we not do a concerted effort. And then there are other benefits gained by taking care of the environment, that in reality is also the place were we also work and live. > [@madsircool](#): > > 2)Oil makes our lives better Meaningless really in this context, of course it makes our lives better but we are talking about emissions. As I have seen many efforts made also by the fossil fuel companies are geared to prevent the emissions from going into the atmosphere. Oil will continue to make out lives better. > [@madsircool](#): > > 3)Unlike the effects of smoking its far harder to understand what petroleum products are doing to facilitate CC That is why one has to consult the experts and the scientists, not politicians paid by fossil fuel lobbies, and they are politicians that only listen to fossil fuel funded researchers. That BTW is a nice racket. > [@madsircool](#): > > 4)Government prosecution of opinion or so-called thought crimes or of entities opporating legally in their self-interest should be repulsive in a free society. They are not thought crimes, the evidence is there that the fossil fuel companies knew decades ago that the release of all that CO2 was going to change the climate. Instead of acting neutrally towards the change they funded denier organizations and political groups that did fund denier politicians. > [@madsircool](#): > > The tobacco companies also didn’t really lose; they simply raised their prices. This disproportionately hurts poorer/working class folks. > > The automobile/heating oil etc has been a great benefit to humanity overall. The same can not be said for tobacco. (I wonder if there would have even been a suit against toba co companies if they hadn’t spiked the nicotine to make them more addictive. Where is the smoking gun against the petrolium industries?) See above. The preponderance of evidence brought by many lines of evidence shows that it is the emissions what it is causing the current climate change. > **[Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Global Warming](https://thinc.blog/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/)** > > Physicist Richard Muller became a hero to the climate denial community a few years ago, after saying some pretty harsh things about climate science, and scientists. He started the Berkeley Earth Su… ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/64 "2015-10-21T16:39:06Z")
nm ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/65 "2015-10-21T16:42:32Z")
I don’t see much point in criminal proceedings, it would merely provide gainful employment to battalions of lawyers. I just want the facts. I want to know who signed off on this and who, if anyone, spoke against it. Even if it worked, even if all the Republicans and about half the Democrats were not eager to sweep this all away, business executives do not go to prison, they go to Club Fed, where the chef cannot make a decent white sauce and they serve red wine with fish. I just want them to explain it to me, tell me why. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/66 "2015-10-21T16:46:19Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Just what illegal activities have the oil companies engaged? The only reason they won the tobacco lawsuits is because big tobacco settled. How about [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill)? They might not be able to prove who died from climate change, but it is very clear that 11 workers died when that rig sank. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/67 "2015-10-21T16:47:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t see much point in criminal proceedings, it would merely provide gainful employment to battalions of lawyers. I just want the facts. I want to know who signed off on this and who, if anyone, spoke against it. Even if it worked, even if all the Republicans and about half the Democrats were not eager to sweep this all away, business executives do not go to prison, they go to Club Fed, where the chef cannot make a decent white sauce and they serve red wine with fish. > > I just want them to explain it to me, tell me why. Criminal proceedings may be the way to get those explanations. And we shouldn’t give up on prosecution just because it hasn’t worked in past. That’s a dangerous path to follow. Although honestly, I think it’s pretty clear why they’ve been doing this. Profits, plain and simple. More precisely, preventing losses. They have too much invested in reserves and infrastructure to just abandon all of that and pursue clean and renewable energy. I’m not excusing their behavior, mind you, just explaining it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/68 "2015-10-21T17:59:35Z")
> [@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? For practical and moral purposes, yes, though it’s not clear if it passes the legal test for conviction. First, through concerted and lavishly funded [disinformation campaigns](http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/) and political spending that persuade politicians to doubt the science even in the face of scientific testimony and advice from Congress’ own National Academy of Sciences. Second, from direct Congressional testimony from [pseudo-scientific shills like this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0), who are largely funded by the oil industry and function as ostensibly credible proxies for them. > [@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’s a completely irrelevant argument. First, because you’re confusing legislative policy with the _ **accurate scientific input** _ that is necessary for sensible policy. Give the legislators accurate information and let them make considered decisions. The problem is that oil companies have been messing both with the information to which the legislators are exposed – causing many to doubt the science based on false representations from bogus sources – and with the impartiality of the legislators themselves by funding their campaigns. Second, while oil may _ **currently** _ be “the lifeblood of the world and of modern civilization”, it’s fundamentally energy, not oil, that sustains us. And none of it is of any value without a stable and hospitable climate that sustains, not just the economy and civilization, but life itself. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/69 "2015-10-21T18:07:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Among _economists_ generally? Of course not. Environmental problems are an externality. It’s not an economic argument (or rather it’s an anti-economic argument). Maybe I misunderstood the context of your post. I was taking your statement about “rising oil prices are a net positive in the long term” as something that would be taken into account when adjudicating this. Were you just responding to the poster, and not talking about matters relevant to any case that might be brought? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/70 "2015-10-21T18:09:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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 | Climate crisis | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry) 1.2 million over more than a decade, is that all the guy was worth? ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/71 "2015-10-21T18:32:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe I misunderstood the context of your post. I was taking your statement about “rising oil prices are a net positive in the long term” as something that would be taken into account when adjudicating this. It’s something that the POTUS and Justice Department and the rest of the decisionmaking tree would consider when deciding whether to bring charges/suit. It would not factor into the legal analysis. Is that what you meant? ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/72 "2015-10-21T18:34:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s something that the POTUS and Justice Department and the rest of the decisionmaking tree would consider when deciding whether to bring charges/suit. It would not factor into the legal analysis. Is that what you meant? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/73 "2015-10-21T18:43:46Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > 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. Eubanks is suggesting that RICO charges should/maybe/might be considered, if the Justice Dept would only do what she wants them to do. Maybe Eubanks wants to save the planet, or maybe Eubanks just wants her share of a big litigation? Win, lose, or draw, Eubanks the lawyer would get paid. \*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 regarding ExxonMobil, the DOJ should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies. “I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered,” she said. …Still, Eubanks stressed than a similar investigation into ExxonMobil could be worthwhile under any political circumstances — **even if it’s to find out that there’s not enough evidence to bring a lawsuit at all**. “I can’t tell you that it clears every hurdle,” she said. “I’m not an environmental lawyer. But I know it’s important…This is more important than just running a case. That much I’m sure of.”\* [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/) Eubanks admits that she doesn’t if there are actual grounds for an actual lawsuit. It seems that Eubanks would like to see oil companies punished for being oil companies. ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/74 "2015-10-21T18:46:52Z")
The House Republicans have held 11 Benghazi investigations. What is it about the suggestion that ExxonMobil be investigated that you find troubling? ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/75 "2015-10-21T18:57:01Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Eubanks is suggesting that RICO charges should/maybe/might be considered, if the Justice Dept would only do what she wants them to do. Maybe Eubanks wants to save the planet, or maybe Eubanks just wants her share of a big litigation? Win, lose, or draw, Eubanks the lawyer would get paid. > > \*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 regarding ExxonMobil, the DOJ should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies. > > “I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered,” she said. > > …Still, Eubanks stressed than a similar investigation into ExxonMobil could be worthwhile under any political circumstances — **even if it’s to find out that there’s not enough evidence to bring a lawsuit at all**. > > “I can’t tell you that it clears every hurdle,” she said. “I’m not an environmental lawyer. But I know it’s important…This is more important than just running a case. That much I’m sure of.”\* > > [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/) > > Eubanks admits that she doesn’t if there are actual grounds for an actual lawsuit. It seems that Eubanks would like to see oil companies punished for being oil companies. Right. That’s the article I posted. You seem to be trying to use it to correct me in some way or other. I’m the one who posted it and I wasn’t disputing the qualifications. Yes. There are many “ifs”, “ands”, and “buts”. That’s why my thread title is a question. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/76 "2015-10-21T19:04:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It seems that Eubanks would like to see oil companies punished for being oil companies. Ya think? Actually, as I suggested above, maybe she’s concerned that they’ve misled Congress, misled the American people, spent billions to create an entire propaganda infrastructure to undermine science in exactly the same manner and using the same tricks and even some of the same unethical and discredited pseudo-scientists as the tobacco industry, and even sent paid shills to misrepresent the science to Congress on their behalf. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/77 "2015-10-21T19:27:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The House Republicans have held 11 Benghazi investigations. What is it about the suggestion that ExxonMobil be investigated that you find troubling? Has there really been 11 Benghazi investigations? It’s amazing that NEW information is still being uncovered. Maybe Hillary should have been more forthcoming instead of dragging her feet month, after month, after month. Anything to get her own name in front of the public, I guess. I’m in favor of investigations. What’s interesting about Eubanks “suggestion” is her lack of evidence that this alleged conspiracy actually exists. I guess Eubanks doesn’t have standing to file charges, or have the authority to force the DOJ to do her bidding. Simply saying, “Those guys don’t agree with my guess-timation of what will happen in the FUTURE and that warrants an investigation”, doesn’t seem to carry any legal weight. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/78 "2015-10-21T19:28:07Z")
Well, yes, but what did they do _wrong_? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/79 "2015-10-21T19:32:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Ya think? Actually, as I suggested above, maybe she’s concerned that they’ve misled Congress, misled the American people, spent billions to create an entire propaganda infrastructure to undermine science in exactly the same manner and using the same tricks and even some of the same unethical and discredited pseudo-scientists as the tobacco industry, and even sent paid shills to misrepresent the science to Congress on their behalf. Haven’t the pro global warming zealots been able to present their own “evidence” of what might happen in the future? I assume that people can still looks at all sides of the issue and make up their own minds. What is it about the presentations of the pro-global warming zealots that the public finds so unbelievable? ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/80 "2015-10-21T19:34:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Has there really been 11 Benghazi investigations? It’s amazing that NEW information is still being uncovered. The only new discoveries seem to be the political motivations of the GOP leadership. [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=3) [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=5)