3 thoughts on “Criminal beliefs? NY’s probe of Exxon targets big oil over global warming stance”
Exxon’s duty to shareholders is set out by the Securities Commission. The company must inform the owners of any positive or adverse circumstances that may affect the value of company assets.
The climate threat to the assets of the company arises not from expected changes in temperature and precipitation, but from potential government regulations and policies in relation to these climatic factors.
If Exxon management was at fault, it was because management did not foresee that governments might some day intervene in a way that would reduce the value of Exxon’s assets and profitability.
First. any prosecutor has to prove that government has actually reduced the value of Exxon’s asset and profitability. Second. the prosecutor has to show that managers acting with due diligence could reasonably foresee that government would enact such legislation and adopt such policies.
As for determining what adverse effects energy production has had on consumers and the public at large, what will count is the net benefit after the social costs and benefits have been weighed. The prosecutor would have to convince the court that the American people are worse off with energy from fossil fuels than without energy.
Even today we cannot be sure that the people will accept that government will restrict access to energy by limiting its exploitation.
Government backed and funded is no better. I want proof from the U.N. and federal government side of things for open peer review. Refuse and it just go’s to prove is no global warming, its just a “political conspiracy”( legal term).
From what we have learned its not about saving the planet, but about control and money! Their control, your money.
It’s not insane! Those who back Global Warming are very sane. They want money, and Exxon has it.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Exxon’s duty to shareholders is set out by the Securities Commission. The company must inform the owners of any positive or adverse circumstances that may affect the value of company assets.
The climate threat to the assets of the company arises not from expected changes in temperature and precipitation, but from potential government regulations and policies in relation to these climatic factors.
If Exxon management was at fault, it was because management did not foresee that governments might some day intervene in a way that would reduce the value of Exxon’s assets and profitability.
First. any prosecutor has to prove that government has actually reduced the value of Exxon’s asset and profitability. Second. the prosecutor has to show that managers acting with due diligence could reasonably foresee that government would enact such legislation and adopt such policies.
As for determining what adverse effects energy production has had on consumers and the public at large, what will count is the net benefit after the social costs and benefits have been weighed. The prosecutor would have to convince the court that the American people are worse off with energy from fossil fuels than without energy.
Even today we cannot be sure that the people will accept that government will restrict access to energy by limiting its exploitation.
Government backed and funded is no better. I want proof from the U.N. and federal government side of things for open peer review. Refuse and it just go’s to prove is no global warming, its just a “political conspiracy”( legal term).
From what we have learned its not about saving the planet, but about control and money! Their control, your money.
It’s not insane! Those who back Global Warming are very sane. They want money, and Exxon has it.