Image 01 Image 03

Exxon attempts to deflect legal “Climate Change” strikes

Exxon attempts to deflect legal “Climate Change” strikes

SEC and #ExxonKnew activists also targeting the energy giant

Energy company and fossil-fuel provider Exxon Mobil is the Jupiter of American business.

It’s so large, it’s gravitational pull attracts Obama Administration strikes to promote wealth-distributing “climate change” policies and otherwise undermine the American economy.

Earlier this week, I noted that one of Exxon Mobil’s allies in the quest for sensible science regulation (the Competitive Enterprise Institute) was subpoenaed by the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands for correspondence related to its two decades worth of work on climate change and energy policy…including private donor information. Attorney General Claude E. Walker is one of the 17 “AGs for Clean Power” who have colluded to punish “climate change deniers” using civil racketeering statutes.

Exxon Mobil is the test case for the legal tactic being implemented by the “Gang of 17”.

However, the energy giant is attempting to deflect this particular strike:

Exxon Mobil Corp. went to court Wednesday to challenge a government investigation of whether the company conspired to cover up its understanding of climate change, a sign the energy company is gearing up for a drawn-out legal battle with environmentalists and officials on the politically charged issue.

The company filed court papers in Texas seeking to block a subpoena issued in March by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, one of several government officials pursuing Exxon. Wednesday’s filing argues that the subpoena is an unwarranted fishing expedition into Exxon’s internal records that violates its constitutional rights.

“The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment,” the filing says.

Exxon also dismisses the notion that there is any suggestion of a crime, saying Attorney General Claude Earl Walker “issued the subpoena without the reasonable suspicion required by law and based on an ulterior motive to silence those who express views on climate change with which they disagree.”

The AGs are just one weapon in this particular battle. The Obama Administration has also unleashed the Securities and Exchange Commission, with success:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has told Exxon Mobil it must include a resolution on its annual shareholder proxy that, if approved, would force the company to outline for investors how its profitability may be affected by climate change and the legislation that aims to combat it.

The decision was a defeat for the energy giant, which had fought against it. The proposal was introduced in December, after the Paris accord on climate change, by a coalition of investors led by New York State’s comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, who is the trustee of New York State Common Retirement Fund, and the Church of England.

Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil producer, said on Wednesday that it would “provide the board’s position on the shareholder resolutions in our proxy document.”

It is not obvious that Exxon’s shareholders will embrace such an idea. Last year, they soundly rejected a proposal to add to the board an independent director with expertise in climate change.

I suspect many of the shareholders are like myself, who acquired stock in opposition to the environmental thuggery of this administration.

The environmental activists relish the thought of investors pulling out of fossil fuels, and hence the SEC requirements. This theory is as sound as the climate science they promote: Exxon’s stock is up on higher oil prices.

Finally, the minions of the Obama Administration are ginning up a social media campaign: #ExxonKnew.

A key meeting in the new push unfolded in January behind the closed doors of a Manhattan office building.

The session brought together about a dozen people, including Kenny Bruno, a veteran of environmental campaigns, and Bill McKibben, founder of, two activists who helped lead the successful fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline. The new campaign’s goals include “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm,” according to an agenda of the meeting viewed by The Wall Street Journal. This new legal strategy stems in part from environmentalists’ frustration at what they see as the inadequacy of recent climate deals.

Behold our opponents in all their social media glory:

Ultimately, scientific and technological realities will attract more Americans and profits…no matter how many legal, regulatory, and social media strikes the Obama Administration and its lesser satellites lob.

(Featured Image via Twitter).


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


buckeyeminuteman | April 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm

Big oil companies = evil
Big tech companies/media = valuable social justice crusaders
Big professional sports leagues = just another member of the family

Just another Government shakedown.

The endgame is the government eliminating competition and completely getting in bed with the surviving standard oil monopoly which will both own and be owned by the government (or the individuals who control the government).

    Mike-in-Mass in reply to rotten. | April 15, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Just look at the opportunities (taxes, bribes, laws) the US Govt is missing out on. Saudi Aramco, PetroBras, Pemex, PDVSA, Gazprom, PetroVietnam, etc are all Govt owned oil companies. I’m in the business and see the special deals and “spreading the wealth” among state officials that goes on. They will specify their new plants with such detail where only their vendors who provided some upfront cash will get the business. It’s a great racket and there is no one who can stop them unless they welcome a deep grave encased in cement.

#ExxonKnew the theory of man-made climate change was full of crap.

The system is incompletely characterized, and self-evidently insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy, which ensures progressive inaccuracy and precludes long-term (i.e. days, months, years) predictions within a scientific (i.e. limited) frame of reference.

That said, #EnvironmentalistsKnew that non-renewable, low energy density “green” technologies have polluting and large-scale disruptive effects on flora, fauna, and people throughout their production lifetime from recovery to reclamation.

Ironically, oil is one of the few chemical primitives used by man that is also a basic nutrient in some environments.

None of Exxon Mobile’s attempts to appease the global warming crowd with their research into renewable oil from plankton and commercials airing on Sunday news shows advertising this worked.

Social Justice cannot be appeased, because social justice is about power not justice.

ugottabekiddinme | April 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm

I’d like to hear the presidential candidates’ take on this shake down “lawfare” and how they propose to stop the abuse of the legalmsystem.

ugottabekiddinme | April 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm

legal system

ugottabekiddinme | April 14, 2016 at 2:12 pm

correction: “legal system”

Obama is not sustainable.

On Jan. 17th, 2017 Obama’s will be regulated out of office.

Conservative0317 | April 14, 2016 at 2:17 pm

I am not a lawyer, but I think Exxon should take this #ExxonKnew group to court for something akin to defamation of character. If I understand that suit correctly, it is upon the defendants to prove that what they are saying about Exxon is true, which we know they cannot since the evidence and actual observations disagree with what is alleged about AGW/Climate Change(tm).

    That are incorrect. The plaintiffs would have to prove not only that the claims are in fact false, but also that the defendants either knew they were false, or had no basis for believing them to be true. It would be a hopeless case.

Attorney General Claude E. Walker is one of the 17 “AGs for Clean Power” who have colluded to punish “climate change deniers” using civil racketeering statutes.

INAL, so I’ll have to ask – Doesn’t applying ‘civil racketeering statutes’ mean that the target has broken some type of law/regulation/statute?

What law/regulation/statute are the ‘climate change deniers’ in violation of?

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to rinardman. | April 14, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    As I understand it, the tactic follows what was done to make tobacco companies civilly liable for illness in smokers, and pay billions in damages, by alleging that the companies knew long ago that tobacco use was unhealthy but suppressed the knowledge and spent lots of money to cover it up with funded research showing it was not.

    The argument here is that oil companies likewise “know” that use of petroleum products damages the environment (ie AGW) but continuously publish and advertise to the contrary. The use of falsehood to underpin and continue business with revenues in the billions while “knowingly” harming people is the crux of civil racketeering (no crime need be proven — it is civil, not criminal) and allows endless damages.

The unelected administrative state cannot prove damages. It can just make your life miserable with its harassment.

Vote for small innocuous government.

It’s probable the liberal commies want to own the company and make obscene profits.
Like Soros buying coal now that they’ve driven their stock prices so low.

Billionaire investor George Soros, who has demonized fossil fuels for years through his think tanks and political contributions, seems to have warmed up to Big Coal now that stocks are dirt cheap.

The left-wing hedge fund legend has raised eyebrows with major purchases of stock in two large coal companies, firms his critics say he helped bring to their knees. While buying low is the hallmark of any shrewd investor, buying coal goes against the political and environmental ideology Soros has long espoused.
The filing shows the purchases of 553,200 shares of Arch Coal for $188,000 and an investment of $2,254,000 into Peabody Energy for 1,029,400 shares, which means he’s lost money on both so far.
You might recall Peabody just filed for bankruptcy.

stevewhitemd | April 14, 2016 at 6:33 pm

Interesting how even the WSJ frames this as Exxon clearly being up to no good, having its hands caught in the cookie jar, desperately trying to get away with something.

Whereas what Exxon is really saying is that the AG’s are trying to stifle free speech so as to advance their political agenda.

Pure. Unadulterated. Bullsh*t.

But that’s pretty much our present and future here in the USofA.

casualobserver | April 14, 2016 at 8:15 pm

Originally I wondered why the beck the progressive AGs were selecting the deepest possible pockets with no reason whatsoever to give in. Now it dawns on me that they know this is a losing battle. And by picking ExxonMobil they are assured of getting maximum vote pandering value for this election and maybe the next. It’s the battle they want. Not the victory. But, then again, progressives have an aversion to battle victories.