ExxonMobil Accuses California of Violating Its Free Speech (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0179888346
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/10/28/020240/exxonmobil-accuses-california-of-violating-its-free-speech
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/807357/exxon-lawsuit-california-greenhouse-gas-climate-reporting-laws
> The oil and gas company claims that the [2]two laws in question aim to "embarrass" large corporations the state "believes are uniquely responsible for climate change" in order to push them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There is [3]overwhelming [4]scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels cause climate change by trapping heat on the planet. [...] Under laws the state passed in 2023, "ExxonMobil will be forced to describe its emissions and climate-related risks in terms the company fundamentally disagrees with," a complaint filed Friday says. The suit asks a US District Court to stop the laws from being enforced.
>
> [...] ExxonMobil's latest suit now says the company "understands the very real risks associated with climate change and supports continued efforts to address those risks," but that California's laws would force it "to describe its emissions and climate-related risks in terms the company fundamentally disagrees with." "These laws are about transparency. ExxonMobil might want to continue keeping the public in the dark, but we're ready to litigate vigorously in court to ensure the public's access to these important facts," Christine Lee, a spokesperson for the California Department of Justice, said in an email to The Verge.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/807357/exxon-lawsuit-california-greenhouse-gas-climate-reporting-laws
[2] https://viewpoint.pwc.com/us/en/pwc/in-depth/id202505.html
[3] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
[4] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/
Story dupe; also, part of a wider Exxon push (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot posted this already.
The effort by Exxon here is tied to their efforts to undermine all GHG reporting. They've allied with others such as EY and Santander and BGIP to try to create an alternative reporting structure that enables them to disclaim all responsibility for Scope 2 and 3 emissions, ie the actual use of the products they extract. They want to limit themselves to having to be responsible only for the carbon associated with the creation of the product. They are absolutely grotesque and I despise them for doing this.
[1]https://sustainabilitymag.com/... [sustainabilitymag.com]
[1] https://sustainabilitymag.com/news/why-blackrock-gip-exxon-are-backing-new-co2-tracking-model
Weird argument (Score:3)
One of the laws they're complaining about requires them to have 3rd party insurance because of previous situations where they, specifically, broke laws and then attempted to avoid paying court ordered compensation.
No idea how that's supposed to be a free speech violation, unless they're basically saying that the government shouldn't be able to compel people to have 3rd party insurance when they drive a car...
They're kind of arguing that the laws hurt their feelings by attributing to them actions that they have performed.
While I don't like ExxonMobil... (Score:2, Informative)
They do have a point of sorts here. All those reporting requirements and green washing speech are getting a bit out of control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations don't die by the contamination they produce. You do. And if you wanna talk about "things getting a bit out of control", let's talk about the sh*te Corporations do, and the money they make, by polluting the environment (that we will need to clean and pay for it WITH OUR MONEY!) meanwhile corporations go away with the money they made while they were leaving the Earth like a trash bin.
Inconvenient Truth (Score:2)
Having to report an inconvenient truth is not a violation of free speech. On the contrary. It helps to prevent silencing inconvenient messages.
CANP (Score:1)
Corporations. Are. Not. People! They don't have the same rights as an individual, and the Founders never intended them to.
Screw the [1]bribed SCROTUS [theguardian.com] and [2]magic-undie Mitt. [uncyclopedia.co]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/clarence-thomas-anthony-welters-luxury-rv-loan-forgiven
[2] https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/File:Mitt_panties.jpg
No rights violated (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't refuse to follow accounting standard just because they don't like it. That's why companies report both GAAP and non-GAAP. Similar, they what they CAN do is to also release a report using another standard. This is not about the standard. They just don't want to report it period.
Corporate free speech is bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate free speech is bollocks. Human rights are for human beings. Also, corporations do not have opinions, they cannot "disagree" with anything. You need a brain to have opinions. Only humans (well, animals) have brains.
Re:Corporate free speech is bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Companies already have so many rights and advantages the people don't (being immortal for example), it's getting crazy that they want to pilfer the few we have. Citizen United has done *so much* damage for democracy and the world at large.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yeah. Companies already have so many rights and advantages the people don't (being immortal for example)
In this case it's the owners of the companies. They get to take the money out of the company, or sometimes put money in to pay for actions, knowing that it can't be taken back or them effectively sued because of the "Limited Liability". The LLC company is a creation of the government through the companies laws which protects the owners from the actions of the company, which is supposed to be on the grounds that it's the officers of the company that are responsible for the company, not the owners.
The office