What to do with a company that knowingly endangers not only its own customers, but all living things?

More specifically -- what to do with Exxon-Mobil, which at a cost of over $3 million (inflation-adjusted) outfitted one of its own supertankers with equipment to measure CO2 levels in the ocean and deployed the top scientists on its own payroll to reach this conclusion by the early 1980s:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ wrote:“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," (senior Exxon scientist James) Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

In 1980, the U.S. Congress held a hearing on climate change that was attended by Henry Shaw of Exxon Research and Engineering in New Jersey. Shaw had prepared a report on the findings of the supertanker research. Shaw is dead, but InsideClimateNews.org tracked down Shaw's former research assistant, Ed Garvey.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112015/how-we-got-exxon-mobil-climate-change-science-story-subpoena-investigation wrote:When I asked Garvey why Exxon had undertaken such ambitious research, he said, "Exxon felt that greenhouse gas emissions would be a problem in the future, that there was the prospect of legislation and the possible replacement of fossil fuels. And if that was going to be discussed, they wanted to have a seat at table and be taken seriously. They didn't want to be seen as advocate only of continuing to use fossil fuels. They wanted to be seen as people making serious efforts to understand the science."

Of course, over the next decade, as climate change entered the public consciousness and became perceived as a threat to Exxon-Mobil's profits (it claims five spots on the top-10 list of all-time highest annual corporate profits), Exxon-Mobil became one of the leading corporate denialists of climate change:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ wrote:Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty.

Scientists and environmentalists have pushed back, of course:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ wrote:
Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Dossiers here: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

But that work on climate change, done before acknowledging climate change was bad for business, has come back to haunt the company:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112015/how-we-got-exxon-mobil-climate-change-science-story-subpoena-investigation wrote:Then, Dave Hasemyer learned from scientist Michael MacCracken, who had long helped run federal climate research programs, that Exxon scientists had worked with the government on climate science as far back as the early 1980s. They had even collaborated on climate models with noted academics and published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

And now they're in trouble with the law, finally:

ExxonMobil is fighting a subpoena seeking its internal documents on climate change, arguing that the order violates the company’s constitutional rights. It’s an argument that legal experts say is unusual but not unprecedented.

Earlier this month, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker initiated an investigation into whether Exxon misled the public on climate science. His office is also requesting records from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank to which Exxon has previously provided funding. In that subpoena, the AG’s office accuses Exxon of defrauding the government and consumers, and “misrepresenting its knowledge of the likelihood that its products and activities have contributed and are contributing to climate change.”

Walker is one of a few state attorneys general that have announced plans to use a variety of legal tools against Exxon and other companies they believe have “deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change.” The attorneys general from New York, California and Massachusetts have all announced investigations into Exxon specifically.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63

Wasn't it Exxon that let off all that gas in India and killed and maimed thousands?

Is anything going to be done though, really? They're a very huge company and very powerful, considering they are worth a couple of dollars....

Just thought, the Indian incident was Union Carbide.   Exxon had the oil spill in Alaska.

I sure hope Claud Walker gets somewhere on this.   It's iniquitous

NOTHING should surprise anyone with regard to Exxon's behaviour...

AFTER they sacked the captain of the Valdez after that oil spill, a couple of yeare later it was reported that they had re-hired him, and hid him away in one of their more obscure subsidiaries !!!

sassy wrote:

Just thought, the Indian incident was Union Carbide.   Exxon had the oil spill in Alaska.

I sure hope Claud Walker gets somewhere on this.   It's iniquitous

WITH REGARD to that Bhopal gas disaster in India, the Indian guvm'nt has had an international arrest warrant out for one of the Union Carbide bosses at the time (if he's still alive, that is, after more than 30 years..).

EVEN though there have been dozens of countries that were prepared to extradite him to India for trial if he ever stepped foot on their soil, at the same time there have been several countries that he could travel to -- including the USA, Australia, Canada and Britain -- that he could still travel between, effectively protected by them refusing to recognise the arrest warrant !!!!!

AAH, YES.. One of the benefits of being a big donor to American political parties..

Wolfie, was he sacked for being drunk at the "Wheel"

nicko wrote:Wolfie,  was he sacked for being drunk at the "Wheel"

He wasn't drunk, he was sleep-deprived if I remember right.

Here we go:

Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. However, as the senior officer, he was in command of the ship even though he was asleep in his bunk. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate." [16] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.

Edited to include: The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.