Chevron/oil companies take different approach in GW lawsuit

[GK4Herd]

Back IPCC findings but claim they’re not liable...


Chevron’s lawyer, speaking for major oil companies, says climate change is real and it’s your fault
In a court hearing in San Francisco, oil companies publicly backed the science of climate change
Sarah JeongMar 22, 2018, 2:23pm EDT
In a federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, major oil companies concurred with the “scientific consensus,” saying it was “extremely likely” that human activity has been driving global warming since the middle of the 20th century. They just don’t think they can be sued for it.

“Chevron accepts what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has reached consensus on concerning science and climate change,” said Theodore Boutrous, who represents Chevron and is heading up the assorted legal team for the five oil companies that are defendants in this lawsuit. But, he said, that didn’t mean that a civil lawsuit was the right way to address climate change. “It’s a global issue that requires global action,” he said.

Over the course of two hours, Boutrous ran through the findings of the most recent IPCC report (released in 2013), acknowledging that global temperatures were rising due to carbon dioxide caused by human activity, that other factors were negligible, and that as a result, sea levels were rising. No time was given to any denials of climate science, with Boutrous sticking closely to the substance of the IPCC report. Even his attempt at implying that his client was not at fault was framed within the substance of the IPCC report; he said that the report never said “extraction or production” of oil was the cause of carbon dioxide emissions, but rather the “economic activity” that burned fossil fuels.


https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/...co-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon

 

[countryroads89]

I consider myself centrist to liberal. It is good to see Chevron publicly acknowledge global warming. Exxon previously did. I really don’t see how an oil company or oil companies could be liable for their contribution to global warming. Look at the millions of motor vehicles being operated every day by ordinary citizens like you and I. We each have contributed. Likewise for electricity producers burning coal. As long as they complied with emission requirements established by the government, I don’t see them as being liable.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Which is exactly their reasoning. Why turn the battle into whether they agree or disagree with the report findings? If they agree with it they don't have to waste any time or expense fighting it, they come across as environmentally "woke", which puts them in a better light with people that think like you (as evidenced by your post).

Doesn't mean they agree with it or not, it's just their defense strategy. A jury, or judge with strong personal feelings on the matter, would be harder to deal with if they thought the company was fighting the science. So smart move on their part.

It's the "We really wish people were more responsible with our product" defense and it's a solid one. Gun manufactures aren't responsible for people getting shot, car makers aren't responsible for people wrecking and dying, liquor manufactures aren't responsible for drunk drivers. None of those waste time arguing what happens with their product.

 

[19MU88]

I consider myself centrist to liberal. It is good to see Chevron publicly acknowledge global warming. Exxon previously did. I really don’t see how an oil company or oil companies could be liable for their contribution to global warming. Look at the millions of motor vehicles being operated every day by ordinary citizens like you and I. We each have contributed. Likewise for electricity producers burning coal. As long as they complied with emission requirements established by the government, I don’t see them as being liable.

centrist....hilarious. you will get better at this debate stuff once you figure out what you are.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

I consider myself centrist.

 

[GK4Herd]

Which is exactly their reasoning. Why turn the battle into whether they agree or disagree with the report findings? If they agree with it they don't have to waste any time or expense fighting it, they come across as environmentally "woke", which puts them in a better light with people that think like you (as evidenced by your post).

Doesn't mean they agree with it or not, it's just their defense strategy. A jury, or judge with strong personal feelings on the matter, would be harder to deal with if they thought the company was fighting the science. So smart move on their part.

It's the "We really wish people were more responsible with our product" defense and it's a solid one. Gun manufactures aren't responsible for people getting shot, car makers aren't responsible for people wrecking and dying, liquor manufactures aren't responsible for drunk drivers. None of those waste time arguing what happens with their product.

It is their defense strategy be default because they can no longer continue to deny anthropogenic origins. The tobacco companies took the same route by denying and obfuscating the evidence until it became overwhelming and then agreeing with the evidence but denying culpability.

It is certainly a defense strategy but oil companies are slowly modeling their business plan to survive in a world that is quickly moving toward renewable alternatives. From Time...


“The recognition of the energy transition has grown over the past year with the oil and gas players,” says Marie-Helene Ben Samoun, a Houston-based partner at the Boston Consulting Group. “They are not only acknowledging global warming, but they are also acknowledging the energy transition and the impact on their own portfolio.”

The biggest change for oil and gas companies will be the declining need for oil to power the internal combustion engine as electric vehicles become more prevalent and the remaining gas-powered cars become more efficient. Exxon Mobil projected this year that demand for liquid fuel for passenger vehicles will likely peak by 2040. BP reports that the total number of electric cars could hit 300 million by 2040 dealing a significant blow to fuel consumption. That rise plays a significant role given that nearly half of oil consumed in the U.S. in 2016 was used to produce motor gasoline, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.

Fossil fuel companies also face increased competition from renewable energy sources. Exxon Mobil projects 400% growth in wind and solar power by 2040 while BP says renewable energy will make up 40% of growth in energy production in the same period. Today, wind and solar make up around 7% of the U.S. electricity supply.



The need for oil will continue for a long time but it will continue to diminish as the world makes a transition to clean energy. I don’t blame oil companies for self preservation. But they are starting to understand that in order to survive they have to shift their business model to accommodate a world in transition.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Doesn't mean they agree with it or not, it's just their defense strategy. A jury, or judge with strong personal feelings on the matter, would be harder to deal with if they thought the company was fighting the science. So smart move on their part.

Doesn't appear this judge bought into the IPCC nonsense.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526