When have climate activists ever worried about the shareholders of an oil multinational? This Monday, the New York Supreme Court is beating Exxon Mobil on suspicion of investor delusion. In the hall: Numerous environmentalists who otherwise protest under the slogan "#ExxonKnew" (Exxon knew it) against the group ..
In fact, most of the company's critics are less likely to care less about whether Exxon managers withheld their share price information from their investors. The trial is an attempt to hold the world's largest energy company responsible for its role in global warming - a "show trial", as the business-friendly "Wall Street Journal" judges. It is about a possible million-dollar fine, but above all the reputation of an industry that is increasingly criticized for its focus on fossil fuels.
Does Rex Tillerson have to testify?
For three years, the New York State Attorney's Office had investigated before indicting them. But the expectation that Exxon would finally be held accountable for the decades-long denial of climate change has not been fulfilled. Today, the indictment merely accuses the group of having dealt internally and publicly with two different scenarios regarding the burden on future corporate profits from state climate protection policies.
While Exxon told investors that increasing regulation in the OECD countries would lead to additional costs of up to $ 80 per tonne of CO2 emissions by 2040, internally it was only $ 40.
Getty Images
Rex Tillerson in his time as Energy Secretary in the Trump administration
The instruction to the coworkers to speak with a split tongue had come from above: thus from the former enterprise boss Rex Tillerson, who, as it turned out on this occasion, with an alias E-Mail address as "Wayne Tracker" was on the way - Wayne is Tillerson's middle name. According to prosecutors, he is said to have used the address, among other things, to address the dangers of climate change to business partners. Exxon has confirmed the existence of the email address.
In 2017, the energy manager, who has not emerged as a total denial of climate change, joined the Cabinet of Donald Trump. But Trump put him back in front of the door after a good year or so. Now the policymaker may have to testify in court.
Exxon himself does not dispute the accusation that he has worked with two different predictions, but defends that argument by saying that the prosecution compares apples to oranges. The purpose of the figure communicated to the outside was to estimate the impact of climate change legislation on the future demand for oil and gas, says attorney Ted Wells. The internal figure was used to calculate the profitability of concrete investment projects. The idea that these costs were set extra low, made no sense: "We would not cheat ourselves."
Originally accused of lying to the public, Exxon also criticized the development of the indictment. "Now is the charge that Exxon told the truth to the public, but lied internally."
more on the subject
Which reading judge Barry Ostrager will follow is unclear. The prosecutors have a sharp sword in their hands: After nearly 100 years in New York valid "Martin Law" they do not have to prove that the corporation deliberately deceived. It is enough if the investors were deprived of relevant facts. The "Martin Law" is so dangerous in the business world that in the past, companies preferred to make comparisons rather than risk a lawsuit. In the case of Exxon, the prosecution claims that the stock
Jefferson Seal / REUTERS
Exxon lawyer Theodore Wells (center)
For the climate protectors, a victory against the 137-year-old Texas oil giant would be a symbolic breakthrough. Several cities have already tried to blame the industry for the consequences of climate change, such as rising sea levels and weather disasters in court. So far, with little success. In July, a federal court rejected New York City's lawsuit against five oil companies. Climate change is "a fact of life," said the judge. But it is not up to the judiciary to find solutions, but one from the US Congress and the government.
The process should not change the business of Exxon
Many communities, politicians and activists do not want to be satisfied with this. Exxon, once the world's most valuable company, is one of the biggest villains in the game for them. It was only in 2006 that the company publicly acknowledged that fossil fuels are a major contributor to global warming. Enthusiasm for the energy transition has not grown up to this day. While supporting Exxon's international climate change treaty, which was canceled by Trump, as well as the call for the introduction of a CO2 tax. The company has pledged to reduce methane emissions and invest in new technologies such as carbon capture and carbon storage.
But at the same time, CEO Darren Woods has made it clear where he sees his company's core business in the future: in the exploitation of gas and oil fields, in Texas as well as in Brazil or off the coast of South American Guyana. According to Woods, the net profit is expected to double by 2025 - despite all the promises of politics worldwide to reduce climate-damaging emissions.
The double cost accounting shows at least that Exxon with rigid conditions probably did not really expect. Although management has signaled to shareholders that there is a "dramatic change" in government climate policy, said David Shapiro, an expert in white-collar crime at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. In contrast, the numbers used internally go beyond the statement: "Well, when it comes to additional costs through climate change regulation, we do not expect much," said the scientist the APM radio program Marketplace. Tillerson and his colleagues apparently doubted that politics followed their words with deeds.
