District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Last updated
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Seal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1).png
Seal of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
CourtUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia
StartedJune 25th, 2020
Case history
Appealed fromSuperior Court of the District of Columbia
Appealed toUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia

District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. is an ongoing lawsuit filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation by the District of Columbia (D.C.). This case is one of a long list of lawsuits filed against ExxonMobil including environmental and ethical wrongdoings.

Contents

Background

ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil is a multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is the largest publicly traded oil and gas company in the world, making it one of the most profitable companies. In addition to this, ExxonMobil is a major player in the global energy market. Exxon Mobil has operations in over 30 countries, and its operations are divided into four business segments: Upstream, Downstream, Chemical, and Corporate & Financing.

The D.C. Consumer Procedures Act 1976

The D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") is a remedial statute that is to be broadly construed. It establishes an enforceable right to truthful information from merchants about consumer goods and services that are or would be purchased, leased, or received in the District of Columbia. [1]

Historical context

On June 25, 2020, D.C. filed to sue Exxon Mobil Corp for potentially violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The case has been appealed and is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. [2] The District of Columbia argued that Exxon Mobil had made false and misleading statements about its knowledge of climate change and its assessment of the risks posed by climate change to its business. The District of Columbia also argued that Exxon Mobil had made false and misleading statements about its efforts to reduce the risks posed by climate change. Among these are several other CPPA violations written in the official complaint. [2]

Exxon Mobil has not yet responded to the motion for summary judgment. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. The court date is not currently scheduled. Among Exxon Mobil Corp are BP Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Company, P.L.C. and BP America Inc., and Chevron Corporation and Chevron USA, Inc., which are also being sued by D.C. on other counts for violating the same act. [2]

Environmental impact

Forces affecting global warming 2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.svg
Forces affecting global warming

The allegations against ExxonMobil relate to the company's alleged misrepresentation and deception of the risks of climate change and its impact on the environment. The case accuses ExxonMobil of knowingly misleading investors and the public about the risks of climate change and its impact on the company's financial performance. [3] By doing so, ExxonMobil may have made climate change worse by its actions, which could lead to problems like rising sea levels and more extreme weather. This case doesn't focus on any specific harm caused by ExxonMobil, but rather on the company's overall impact on the environment. ExxonMobil has vigorously denied these allegations and argued that the case is politically motivated. [4] However, ExxonMobil is a major player in the oil and gas industry, which means they contribute significantly to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. This emission has a global impact and contributes to climate change.

Exxon Valdez oil spill Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (13266806523).jpg
Exxon Valdez oil spill

In the past, ExxonMobil has been involved in many other high-profile oil spills, and accidents ExxonMobil has faced criticism for its handling of oil spills, including the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, which was one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. [5] Accusations have also been made that the company doesn't do enough to prevent oil spills and address them effectively. These spills aren't the only thing in question. ExxonMobil refineries and factories emit so much toxic air pollutants for the environment that the company's values have been questioned. [6] Additionally, ExxonMobil has been charged with adding to deforestation in areas where it conducts business, especially in Indonesia, where it has been working to establish palm oil plantations. Significant effects of deforestation on soil erosion, carbon sequestration, and wildlife are possible.

Economic impact

The District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp. is and can continue to be a landmark case that had a significant impact on the economy of the United States. The case involves allegations that ExxonMobil has not only misled the public about the effects of climate change occurring but also misleads investors into believing that ExxonMobil was more climate-friendly. ExxonMobil continues to publicize how environmentally friendly they are on their website, claiming to strive to be a leader in the industry. [7] Only 0.2 percent of capital investments by ExxonMobil are in green technology. [1] This information misleads consumers and investors and portrays ExxonMobil as a company that shows the good impacts of their company on the environment but hides the bad ones. [8]

New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange Facade 2015.jpg
New York Stock Exchange

One of the most significant economic impacts of this case is on the fossil fuel industry. ExxonMobil, as one of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world, is seeing and will continue to see the consequences of its own actions as this court case continues, even if the case sides with ExxonMobil. This case, among other cases from ExxonMobil like People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , serves as a wake-up call for the industry, highlighting the need for companies to be transparent about their climate risks and the potential economic impact. The New York case ruled that ExxonMobile did not mislead investors directly through their actions. It has made investors aware of how it is possible to weave around laws to hide their actions, affecting investors instead of consumers with District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobile Corp. [9] These cases will put pressure on other companies to not hide their information, creating environmental and economic transparency which will benefit investors and consumers. [9]

ExxonMobil themselves would face a great loss if the case were decided in favor of the District of Columbia. They would have to pay damages from the case along with facing additional backlash from the public. Much of this along with the other economic impacts is still uncertain as the case has not been settled and depends greatly on which side wins. [2]

Political impact

The lawsuit also raises questions about the role of government regulation in addressing climate change. The case exposes the need for stronger regulations to hold companies accountable for their impact on the environment and the economy. There also is a cause for concern about the government not intervening sooner. ExxonMobil was caught withholding information just years earlier with the People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp. [10] Both cases concern withholding information from the public. [1] [9] ExxonMobil has repeated its past behavior by misleading investors and consumers. Additional laws within the government are solutions to prevent ExxonMobil and other companies from misleading the public. This case falls particularly hard on the government as ExxonMobil has received subsidies from them. For decades, ExxonMobil has been receiving state and local subsidiaries including loans and bailouts. [11]

"Exxon Knew" sign during a protest in Washington D.C. "Exxon Knew" sign on a BLM protest in Washington, DC (2015).jpg
"Exxon Knew" sign during a protest in Washington D.C.

Exxon has also caused sparks with the campaign #ExxonKnew. The #ExxonKnew campaign against ExxonMobil claiming that Exxon knew about its effects on climate change for the past 40 years. [12] The campaign also claims that Exxon withheld the information to make a profit which misled stockholders, investors, and consumers. [8] The campaign was kickstarted in 2012 when the Rockefeller-funded organized conferences which included The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute. The first article with the tag #ExxonKnew was published on September 16, 2015, on Inside Climate News . [13] The campaign has continued to spread over the past decade and has highlighted that Exxon has not only known about climate change but that they have actively engaged with environmental technology as well. This includes spending one million U.S. dollars measuring how much CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and not speaking that information and advanced technology to the public. [12] The #ExxonKnew campaign has been spreading this information through multiple platforms including sources such as The New York Times , and continues to spread information, including about the District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. case, [13] adding to the criticism of ExxonMobil.

Official statements

Karl Racine, former Attorney General for the District of Columbia Karl Racine.jpg
Karl Racine, former Attorney General for the District of Columbia

An ongoing battle between the spokespeople of Exxon Mobil Corp. and D.C. in media has been ongoing concurrent to the case at bay. ExxonMobil spokesperson Casey Norton denied the allegations made by D.C. against the fossil fuel companies arguing, "This lawsuit further demonstrates the ongoing coordinated, politically motivated campaign against energy companies," in an email statement. "Legal proceedings like this waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change." [14]

In a statement regarding the case, former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine stated that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies violated the district's consumer protection law, covering up their knowledge of fossil fuel's negative impact on health and the environment. "Defendants' deceptive and unlawful conduct targeted consumers in the District, and in significant part occurred in the District, including through print advertisements in the District and electronic advertisements provided to DC consumers, including the Washington Post, as well as at District train stations and airports." [15] Currently, the new Attorney General for the District of Colombia, Brian Schwalb, is continuing the case of his predecessor.

Similar cases

Minnesota

In the days before DC brought its case against ExxonMobil, the attorney general of the state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, sued ExxonMobil for violating Minnesota laws in regard to false advertisement, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices. [16]

New York County Courthouse New York State Supreme Courthouse 60 Centre Street from southwest.jpg
New York County Courthouse

New York

In 2019, in New York, ExxonMobil won its lawsuit against the state, accusing the company of misleading its investors in regard to their product's impact on the climate by using two different figures to determine their risk. The judge of the case, Barry Ostrager of the Manhattan Supreme Court, stated the evidence presented by the State of New York showed that the company had done nothing to mislead investors. [17]

Massachusetts

In April 2016, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts brought a civil lawsuit started an investigation into whether ExxonMobil violated its consumer protections statute. The Commonwealth is investigating if the company misled consumers in regard to fossil fuels impact on the climate. [18] The high court of Massachusetts dismissed ExxonMobil's bid to terminate the lawsuit in May 2022, claiming the Commonwealth violated SLAPP laws. [19]

Current status

The District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp case is ongoing. The case has been delayed multiple times due to various legal issues and appeals, and it is unclear when a final resolution will be reached. Exxon Mobil has also faced criticism and other forms of legal action from environmental groups and governments for its alleged role in promoting climate denial, worsening the effects of climate change, and obstructing climate action. ExxonMobil has also been accused of lobbying against climate policies and funding politicians who deny the reality of climate change. However, in response to these allegations, the company has stated that it supports climate action and has invested in research into lower-emission technologies. Environmental activists and critics, on the other hand, argue that ExxonMobil's continued focus on fossil fuel production and lack of significant investment in renewable energy suggests that the company is not taking the threat of climate change seriously enough and that it will have detrimental effects to Earth's environment in the future.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenwashing</span> Use of the aesthetic of conservationism to promote organisations

Greenwashing, also called green sheen, is a form of advertising or marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims, and policies are environmentally friendly. Companies that intentionally take up greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Business action on climate change</span> Range of activities by businesses relating to climate change

Business action on climate change includes a range of activities relating to climate change, and to influencing political decisions on climate change-related regulation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Major multinationals have played and to some extent continue to play a significant role in the politics of climate change, especially in the United States, through lobbying of government and funding of climate change deniers. Business also plays a key role in the mitigation of climate change, through decisions to invest in researching and implementing new energy technologies and energy efficiency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation Law Foundation</span> U.S. non-profit organisation

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is an environmental advocacy organization based in New England, United States. Since 1966, CLF's mission has been to advocate for New England's environment and its communities. CLF's advocacy work takes place across five integrated program areas: Clean Energy & Climate Change, Clean Air & Water, Healthy Oceans, People & Justice, and Healthy Communities. CLF uses the law, science, and the market to create solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy. CLF works to promote renewable energy and fight air and water pollution; build sustainable fishing communities and protect marine habitat; promote public transit and defend public health; achieve environmental justice; and sustain a vibrant, equitable economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fossil fuels lobby</span> Lobbying supporting the fossil fuels industry

The fossil fuels lobby includes paid representatives of corporations involved in the fossil fuel industry, as well as related industries like chemicals, plastics, aviation and other transportation. Because of their wealth and the importance of energy, transport and chemical industries to local, national and international economies, these lobbies have the capacity and money to attempt to have outsized influence on governmental policy. In particular, the lobbies have been known to obstruct policy related to environmental protection, environmental health and climate action.

Human rights violations in Aceh, Indonesia occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s when ExxonMobil hired Indonesian military units to guard their Arun gas field, and these military units raided and razed local villages. Government inquiries have extensively documented these abuses. Victims allege that ExxonMobil knew about the atrocities, which include assault, torture, and murder, and should be liable for them. The company denies these accusations; its primary defense is that the human rights violations which were occurring were not a result of specific intention of the organization and therefore it cannot be held liable.

<i>Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.</i>

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 4:08-cv-01138, is a lawsuit filed on February 26, 2008, in a United States district court. The suit, based on the common law theory of nuisance, claims monetary damages from the energy industry for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska by flooding caused by climate change. The damage estimates made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Government Accountability Office are placed between $95 million and $400 million. This lawsuit is an example of greenhouse gas emission liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ExxonMobil</span> American multinational oil, natural gas, chemicals and energy corporation

ExxonMobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas corporation and the largest direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. The company, which took its present name in 1999 per the merger of Exxon and Mobil, is vertically integrated across the entire oil and gas industry, and within it is also a chemicals division which produces plastic, synthetic rubber, and other chemical products. ExxonMobil is headquartered near the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas, though officially incorporated in the U.S. state of New Jersey.

Stranded assets are "assets that have suffered from unanticipated or premature write-downs, devaluations or conversion to liabilities". Stranded assets can be caused by a variety of factors and are a phenomenon inherent in the 'creative destruction' of economic growth, transformation and innovation; as such they pose risks to individuals and firms and may have systemic implications. Climate change is expected to cause a significant increase in stranded assets for carbon-intensive industries and investors, with a potential ripple effect throughout the world economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 Mayflower oil spill</span>

The 2013 Mayflower oil spill occurred on March 29, 2013, when the Pegasus Pipeline, owned by ExxonMobil and carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands, ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas, about 25 miles (40 km) northwest of Little Rock releasing about 3,190 barrels of oil. Approximately 3,190 barrels of oil and water mix was recovered. Twenty-two homes were evacuated. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the leak as a major spill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Hasemyer</span> American journalist and author

David Hasemyer is an American journalist and author. With Lisa Song and Elizabeth McGowan, he won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and a 2016 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award. He graduated, in 1979, from San Diego State University, with a Bachelor's in Journalism. Hasemyer was raised in Moab, Utah.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of ExxonMobil</span> Overview of controversies and criticisms of ExxonMobil

As the world's largest majority investor-owned oil and gas corporation, ExxonMobil has received significant amounts of controversy and criticism, mostly due to its activities which increase the speed of climate change and its denial of global warming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ExxonMobil climate change denial</span> Overview of climate-related ExxonMobil controversies

Since the 1970s, American fossil fuel and energy corporation ExxonMobil has engaged in climate research focusing on global warming. It later began lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Connecticut</span> Climate change in the US state of Connecticut

Climate change in Connecticut encompasses the effects of climate change, attributed to man-made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, in the U.S. state of Connecticut.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

<i>People v. Exxon Mobil</i> 2018 New York Supreme Court case

People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp. was a lawsuit filed on October 24, 2018, in the New York Supreme Court. The suit alleges fraud by Exxon Mobil Corporation to mislead the company's investors about management of risks posed by climate change. On November 15, 2018, the court signed a preliminary conference order scheduling the trial to begin in 2019.

Lisa Song is an American journalist and author. She won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, with David Hasemyer and Elizabeth McGowan, for their report on the Kalamazoo River oil spill. She works for ProPublica, reporting on the environment, energy and climate change.

Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp is a climate change litigation case brought on ExxonMobil for seeking profit despite knowing the damages it would produce on the environment.

Engine No. 1 is an American activist and impact-focused investment firm. It attracted attention with its campaign to replace four members of ExxonMobil's board of directors despite owning only 0.02% of the company's shares. The firm describes its investment approach as "active ownership", as it prefers to work with management instead of launching activist campaigns.

ExxonMobil, an American multinational oil and gas corporation presently based out of Texas, has had one of the longest histories of any company in its industry. A direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, the company traces its roots as far back as 1886 to the founding of the Vacuum Oil Company, which would become part of ExxonMobil through its own merger with Mobil during the 1930s. The present name of the company comes from a 1999 merger of Standard Oil's New Jersey and New York successors, which adopted the names Exxon and Mobil respectively throughout the middle of the 20th century. Because of Standard Oil of New Jersey's ownership over all Standard Oil assets at the time of the 1911 breakup, ExxonMobil is seen by some as the definitive continuation of Standard Oil today.

Melinda Janki is a Guyanese lawyer. She was instrumental in writing into Guyana's 1995 constitution the Environmental Protection Act giving its citizens among the strongest protections of any nation, including "the right to an environment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being."

References

  1. 1 2 3 "District of Columbia Consumer Protection Laws | Attorney General Brian Schwalb". Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division" (PDF). oag.dc.gov.
  3. ↑ Wamsley, Laurel (October 22, 2019). "Exxon Is On Trial, Accused Of Misleading Investors About Risks Of Climate Change". NPR. Retrieved March 22, 2023.
  4. ↑ McGreal, Chris (2022-05-24). "Exxon must go to trial over alleged climate crimes, court rules". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  5. ↑ "It's been 30 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Here's what we're still learning from that environmental debacle". The Seattle Times. 2019-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  6. ↑ Lerner, Sharon (August 13, 2017). "Exxon Mobil Is Still Pumping Toxins Into Black Community in Texas 17 Years After Civil Rights Complaint". The Intercept. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  7. ↑ "Environment | Sustainability". ExxonMobil. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  8. 1 2 "EXXON KNEW – Exxon Knew About Climate Change". exxonknew.org. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  9. 1 2 3 Vizcarra, Hana (2019-12-12). "Understanding the New York v. Exxon Decision - Environmental & Energy Law Program". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  10. ↑ "City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp.". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  11. ↑ "Subsidy Tracker". subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  12. 1 2 Hall, Shannon. "Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago". Scientific American. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  13. 1 2 "Understanding the #ExxonKnew controversy". ExxonMobil. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  14. ↑ "D.C. attorney general sues oil and gas companies, alleging industry misled public about climate change". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  15. ↑ "District of Columbia sues four oil majors for misleading consumers on climate change". Reuters. 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  16. ↑ "Minnesota sues Exxon, Koch and API for being 'deceptive' on climate change". Reuters. 2020-06-24. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  17. ↑ "Exxon wins New York climate change fight". BBC News. 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  18. ↑ "Attorney General's Office Exxon Investigation". Government of Massachusetts. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  19. ↑ Raymond, Nate (2022-05-24). "Exxon must face Massachusetts climate change lawsuit, court rules". Reuters. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.