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?
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.
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.
(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)
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.
Did they believe that the science was settled, but said otherwise? If so, perjury. Hard to prove, but perjury.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) in Network
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]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.
What prosecutions that led to convictions?
Does a RICO conviction require proof that anyone was harmed?
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.
You are the one who mentioned perjury. I was responding to your hypothetical.
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.
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
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?