# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**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 23, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/101 "2015-10-23T00:21:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. You’ve solved the pro climate change zealots believability problem. It’s not their actual failure to convince the public but the use of the term “zealots” that has led to their failure to convince the public. :smack: The real :smack: is directed to the ones that **also** deny that the public is actually being convinced, even Republicans. > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to a new survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters. > > The results echo a number of other recent surveys concluding that despite the talk of many of the party’s candidates, a significant number of Republicans and independent voters are inclined to support candidates who would back some form of climate action. It may also point to a problem facing Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination: The activists who crowd town hall meetings and Republican presidential caucuses and primaries might not reflect the broader attitude of even the Republican electorate. Once again, the weakest link is the Republicans that are currently in congress as they are clearly not representing what most Republicans think it should be done; and it is clear that the reason for that is thanks to the fossil fuel money that helped many Republican deniers to be a big part of congress. As for RICO not being applicable, the reality is that most judges do defer to experts and generally dismiss the deniers of science in court. Also Eubanks was not talking about the lack of evidence as a show stopper, only pointing out that getting evidence is a big reason why an investigation should be done as there are a lot of circumstances that do show collusion. [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. > [@](#): > > “It appears to me, based on what we know so far, that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change,” Eubanks said. “They were actively denying the impact of human-caused carbon emissions, even when their own research showed otherwise.” > > In addition to giving millions of dollars to politicians and groups that deny climate science, ExxonMobil helped found the Global Climate Coalition, “an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions,” according to Inside Climate. Exxon’s company leaders also argued against the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to fight climate change which the U.S. refused to sign. Exxon reportedly advised then-President George W. Bush not to sign it. > > Critics say ExxonMobil did this while knowing full well the risks of climate change, which is expected to include the displacement of millions of people and even the erasure of some low-lying island nations. > [@](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/102 "2015-10-23T15:01:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Quote: > 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.” (post shortened) Eubanks expects the DOJ (why is Eubanks no longer at DOJ? Did she quit or was she forced out?) to investigate oil companies simply because she doesn’t like oil companies. She admits that she doesn’t have any evidence to even justify an investigation. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/103 "2015-10-23T15:18:20Z")
How about suing individual car owners? Driving cars is a major source of CO2 and pollution-why let the people who own them off the hook? ---
**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 23, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/104 "2015-10-23T15:56:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > Eubanks expects the DOJ (why is Eubanks no longer at DOJ? Did she quit or was she forced out?) to investigate oil companies simply because she doesn’t like oil companies. She admits that she doesn’t have any evidence to even justify an investigation. :rolleyes: live **davidm** said, it was already mentioned, as he said you are only repeating what she knows, and that is not much as she is not involved in this case; but her point stands, it is in the discovery face that most of the evidence came forward and then the Tobacco companies had to settle. ---
**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 23, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/105 "2015-10-23T16:13:33Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > How about suing individual car owners? Driving cars is a major source of CO2 and pollution-why let the people who own them off the hook? As pointed before in other threads the case of dealing with acid rain gives us a clue on why that is silly. Once the evidence was there that some elements in the emissions from power plants and cars did cause acid rain (besides smog in the cities); the solution was to first regulate the power companies and car makers, because it was more economical to add catalytic converters into the manufacturing side of things and then pass the slight increase cost to the consumer. One can see then that nowadays car drivers do get in trouble only if they continue to drive with no converters, there are exception with cars that are declared to be classic in some states, but the point here is the reason why it is silly to sue all people before a regulation is put in place. As the tobacco case showed a lot of information was ignored on purpose and misinformation was created to continue to stop regulation from taking place. The eventual regulations would indeed punish then the individuals that refuse to comply, as by then they already had enough warnings about the changes that are being done and most people who are car owners would by then already comply with their hybrid and electric cars. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/106 "2015-10-23T16:35:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: live **davidm** said, it was already mentioned, as he said you are only repeating what she knows, and that is not much as she is not involved in this case; but her point stands, it is in the discovery face that most of the evidence came forward and then the Tobacco companies had to settle. Of course **davidm** is “live”. What a silly assumption for you to make. :rolleyes: It’s worth repeating that Eubanks doesn’t know of anything RICO-related that applies but that didn’t stop Emily Atkin from Climateprogress from trying to create (falsify?) an issue. While some have actually tried to discuss the possibility of a RICO-related legal attack on oil companies, some others have attempted to shout down people who disagree with them. It’s almost as if those who are doing the shouting-down actually believe that their intended victims actually care what someone who resorts to such tactics thinks, or feels, about them personally. What a hoot. 😃 ---
**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 23, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/107 "2015-10-23T16:48:26Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Of course **davidm** is “live”. What a silly assumption for you to make. :rolleyes: > > It’s worth repeating that Eubanks doesn’t know of anything RICO-related that applies but that didn’t stop Emily Atkin from Climateprogress from trying to create (falsify?) an issue. It was not created by her, but nice shooting of the messenger there. And related to that: I meant to say “like” not live > [@doorhinge](#): > > While some have actually tried to discuss the possibility of a RICO-related legal attack on oil companies, some others have attempted to shout down people who disagree with them. It’s almost as if those who are doing the shouting-down actually believe that their intended victims actually care what someone who resorts to such tactics thinks, or feels, about them personally. What a hoot. 😃 Uh uh, so you shooting the messenger, attempting to shut others by pointing at a grammar errors and ignoring the point Eubanks did make has nothing to do with shouting down others. :rolleyes: And yes, I also meant that it was in the discovery **phase** where a lot of the evidence is found to force a settlement, it was the threat of a conviction that forced the tobacco companies to stop financing the producers of doubt that abuse science. ---
**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 23, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/108 "2015-10-23T16:50:46Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > How about suing individual car owners? Driving cars is a major source of CO2 and pollution-why let the people who own them off the hook? Do you know any drivers who have misrepresented the effects of their cars’ CO2 emissions? Have you even read the fucking thread? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/109 "2015-10-23T17:15:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …And yes, I also meant that it was in the discovery **phase** where a lot of the evidence is found to force a settlement, it was the threat of a conviction that forced the tobacco companies to stop financing the producers of doubt that abuse science. (post shortened) Make your case. Before a lawsuit gets to a discovery phase, there must be some law that has been violated. RICO was created to deal with organized crime families. How does RICO apply to oil companies? Eubanks doesn’t seem to know. ---
**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 23, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/110 "2015-10-23T17:18:30Z")
Read the thread. It’s not that hard. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/111 "2015-10-23T17:21:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …Uh uh, so you shooting the messenger, attempting to shut others by pointing at a grammar errors and ignoring the point Eubanks did make has nothing to do with shouting down others. :rolleyes: Was that a grammar error? Apparently it was. I’m not attempting to stop others from posting. Eubanks seems to think that “someone” other than herself should look into using RICO statues to punish oil companies. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/112 "2015-10-23T17:48:08Z")
Since she is not individually empowered to create such a thing with her own two little pink paddy-paws, that seems entirely sensible. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/113 "2015-11-06T16:10:18Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > 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) > 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? The NY attorney general’s office has [opened an investigation](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0) that appears to be grounded in the securities fraud theory. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/114 "2015-11-06T17:24:33Z")
Now that the Austral summer has arrived (and the Southern Ocean is (inconveniently freezing up), what will the AGW high priests use for an explanation? You can only cry wolf so often. [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=5)