Members of Congress, presidential candidates, and now at least 350,000 American citizens are calling upon U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate and prosecute Exxon Mobil for intentionally deceiving the public about the science of climate change.

In September, two exclusive investigative reports by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, revealed that Exxon’s own scientists were researching climate change, even as the company was spending big money to misinform the public about climate science. The Inside Climate News investigation found that as early as 1977, Exxon’s own scientists were warning management about oil’s role in “potentially catastrophic” global warming.


Many climate advocates – including a growing number of politicians – believe that the deception could well be criminal. Last Thursday, representatives from a number of climate advocacy group – including Climate Hawks Vote, 350.org, Food and Water Watch, the Moms Clean Air Force, the Working Families Party, and Greenpeace USA – delivered over 350,000 signed petitions to the Department of Justice demanding an investigation.

Climate Hawks Vote, a SuperPAC climate advocacy group, first called for a Department of Justice investigation back in September, a few days after the bombshell Inside Climate News report. Their version of the petition reads:

Newly revealed documents show that Exxon’s own scientists were aware of and studying the dangerous impacts of greenhouse gases in the 1970s and 1980s — until Exxon’s leadership decided to shut down the research and promote climate denial instead, in order to protect the company’s unfathomably large profits.

The United States Department of Justice has the power to prosecute Exxon’s deliberate deception under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act – just as the DOJ did to the tobacco industry for knowingly lying about the dangers of cigarette smoking.


Soon, other groups rallied to support the petition.

As did politicians. Every Democratic presidential candidate has now called for a Department of Justice investigation.

Frontrunner Hillary Clinton, was asked at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire whether she would call upon the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil.

“Yes, yes, they should,” Clinton replied. “There’s a lot of evidence they misled people.”

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders sent a letter to Attorney General Lynch asking for an investigation.

“These reports, if true, raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry’s actions – conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions”

And Martin O’Malley, former Governor or Maryland, tweeted, “We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let’s do the same for oil companies and climate change.”

In Congress, there have been further demands. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSalunier, both of California, wrote a letter to Lynch, demanding a probe.

“In this case, Exxon scientists knew about fossil fuels causing global warming and Exxon took internal actions based on its knowledge of climate change. Yet Exxon funded and publicly engaged in a campaign to deceive the American people about the known risks of fossil fuels in causing climate change.”

If these allegations against Exxon are true then Exxon’s actions were immoral. We request the DOJ to investigate whether ExxonMobil’s actions were also illegal.”

The violations could fall into a number of legal categories, RL Miller, founder and president of Climate Hawks Vote, explained in an email. The petition to Attorney General Lynch requested an investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, under which the Department of Justice sued the tobacco industry for lying about the dangers of cigarettes.

Sharon Eubanks was the Department of Justice attorney who won the big racketeering case against Big Tobacco, and told Think Progress, “I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered.”

“It appears to me, based on what we know so far, that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change,” Eubanks said. “They were actively denying the impact of human-caused carbon emissions, even when their own research showed otherwise.”

But Miller of Climate Hawks Vote emphasized that RICO was just a jumping off point, and that “several other statutes might come into play, generally securities fraud and consumer fraud.​” These exist on both the federal and state level.

Miller said that Senator Sanders has called for a task force to investigate. “The right call,” said Miller.

And, on the state level, some attorneys general are already wading in. No one deeper than New York’s Eric Schneiderman, who issued an 18-page subpoena to Exxon Mobil at the beginning of November, demanding the turnover of documents related to Exxon’s climate science research, and of its climate change communications strategy. These requests could lead to possible prosecution under the state’s Martin Act, which forbins “any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense” or “any representation or statement which is false” and give the AG’s office broad power to dig through the company’s document archives.

Advocates, including Miller of Climate Hawks Vote, are now pushing other state AGs to follow Schneiderman’s lead. Last month, Climate Hawks Vote called out 16 state attorneys general in particular, because of their history of at least acknowledging climate pollution as a legal issue. This group includes California AG Kamala Harris, who is currently running for Senate, who has, according to Inside Climate News, “extraordinarily broad investigative authority under the state’s powerful consumer and shareholder protection laws.”

The damages of effective law suits could potentially be huge – entire island nations will disappear because of the climate pollution that Exxon knew and mislead the public about, and what’s the value of that? Regardless of how the courts would potentially decide, Schneiderman (and possibly other AGs who follow suit) are casting a wide net for damning documents, and even more definitive proof of Exxon’s willful web of deceit.

Photo credit: John Duffy (cc) on Flickr

  • Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away
    Dogs have impressive observational powers.Photo credit: Canva

    Reddit user Girlfriendhatesmefor’s three-year-old pitbull, Otis, had recently become overprotective of his wife. So he asked the online community if they knew what might be wrong with the dog.

    “A week or two ago, my wife got some sort of stomach bug,” the Reddit user wrote under the subreddit /r/dogs. “She was really nauseous and ill for about a week. Otis is very in tune with her emotions (we once got in a fight and she was upset, I swear he was staring daggers at me lol) and during this time didn’t even want to leave her to go on walks. We thought it was adorable!”

    His wife soon felt better, butthe dog’s behavior didn’t change.

    pregnancy signs, dogs and pregnancy, pitbull behavior, pet intuition, dog overprotection, Reddit stories, viral Reddit, dog instincts, canine emotions, dog owner tips
    Otis knew before they did. Canva

    Girlfriendhatesmefor began to fear that Otis’ behavior may be an early sign of an aggression issue or an indication that the dog was hurt or sick.

    So he threw a question out to fellow Reddit users: “Has anyone else’s dog suddenly developed attachment/aggression issues? Any and all advice appreciated, even if it’s that we’re being paranoid!”

    The most popular response to his thread was by ZZBC.

    Any chance your wife is pregnant?

    ZZBC | Reddit

    The potential news hit Girlfriendhatesmefor like a ton of bricks. A few days later, Girlfriendhatesmefor posted an update and ZZBC was right!

    “The wifey is pregnant!” the father-to-be wrote. “Otis is still being overprotective but it all makes sense now! Thanks for all the advice and kind words! Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn’t check back until just now!”

    Redditors responded with similar experiences.

    Anecdotal I know but I swear my dog knew I was pregnant before I was. He was super clingy (more than normal) and was always resting his head on my belly.

    realityisworse | Reddit

    So why do dogs get overprotective when someone is pregnant?

    Jeff Werber, PhD, president and chief veterinarian of the Century Veterinary Group in Los Angeles, told Health.com that “dogs can also smell the hormonal changes going on in a woman’s body at that time.” He added the dog may “not understand that this new scent of your skin and breath is caused by a developing baby, but they will know that something is different with you—which might cause them to be more curious or attentive.”

    The big lesson here is to listen to your pets and to ask questions when their behavior abruptly changes. They may be trying to tell you something, and the news may be life-changing.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.

  • ,

    Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

    Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.

    While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.

    When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.

    Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.


Explore More Articles Stories

Articles

Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away

Articles

14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations

Articles

Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

Articles

11 hilarious posts describe the everyday struggles of being a woman