Exxon beats the New York rap

“If a state like New York can bend and twist legal concepts like that of securities fraud to carry on an essentially political vendetta against a corporate enemy, how safe are other businesses?” My new Cato post reports on a judge’s scathing rejection of a case that should never have been brought, the New York Attorney General’s attempt to hang fraud charges on Exxon over its statements on climate change.


  • The idea that Exxon’s views on climate change could “conceal” the risk or “confuse” the public are absurd. The climate change lobby has most governments, the IPCC, all the media (including Nature, Science, and National Geographic) and many scientific societies in their pocket. It is like the claim that a handful of unfunded sceptics (like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre) stopped action against climate change–they must be (Exxon included) superheroes of deception.
    The second absurdity is that the biggest “risk” facing Exxon shareholders (and of which they are accused) is carbon taxes–an essentially unknowable legislative act.
    The third absurdity is that it is the consumers of oil who create emissions, not Exxon per se. Oil and gas are legal products but they want to punish someone for this so they pick on Exxon.

  • […] Review asked me to write a longer piece on last week’s Exxon acquittal (earlier, and […]

  • If I had the ear of any NY offices of National corporations I would be recommending they leave the state.
    Many fewer chances for psychotic prosecutors to deep dive for the bottom of the corporation stockholder’s pockets.