Home | About | Donate

After 'Robbing Humanity' of Better Future, Shareholders Targeted for Big Oil's Charade


After 'Robbing Humanity' of Better Future, Shareholders Targeted for Big Oil's Charade

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

When they gather in Texas and California, respectively, for their annual shareholder meetings next week, ExxonMobil and Chevron will face increasing pressure from shareholders, environmentalists, and impacted communities to act on climate change.

The meetings, both taking place next Wednesday, come amid a concerted effort to hold Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations accountable for deceiving the general public and their shareholders about climate science.


Why do I have the suspicion that someone somewhere, OK, at the DOD, has calculated the "exact" amount of nuclear warfare needed to geo-engineer a countervailing nuclear winter effect?


Will Geoengineering save us?

Big oil must have a plan? is it geoengineering? Isn't it time that we know? Isn't it time that the world scientific community get a look at these plans and scrutinize them? Make sure they are feasible. Make sure they will perform as expected and not create total havoc?


Big oil and governments all would love to have a quick fix solution but it won't work. It may also make things worse in the long run. It is not so simple as to say we will spread particulates (aerosols) in the atmosphere and they will do what? Ah yes that is the problem! What will they do? People think they will reflect the sunlight which some will do temporarily at least while they whiten the clouds and water condenses on the particulates causing them to clump together into larger heavier particulates and drop as heavy rain far out in the ocean and cause droughts to worsen in places and maybe floods in others. Meanwhile the carbon is still acidifying the seas and sulphates ( remember smog) cause the respiratory problems of old. And what do we do next year? More of the same but it's not working and it only works a little where the aerosols are introduced like in the industrial north which actually has a lot of particulates and oops... We are talking while (light colored) particulates which reflect a bit of sunlight as opposed to black particulates (dark colored) carbon aerosols which actually absorb more heat.

Are you a gambling man (or woman)? We theorize with aerosols not plan. We don't know if they would work as thought. We base our guesses on volcanic eruptions which are not replicable and can only hope that increasing the sulphur content of fuel would achieve a benefit. Dirty up the fuel get that? This dirtied fuel will be released as exhaust over the oceans but that method also releases dark aerosols as well and well how much do you want to gamble?

We can do things like encourage people to install solar with net metering or we can let the fossil fuel interests and the Koch brothers discourage people from doing that. Or we can try gambling and delaying getting off fossil fuels because the Koch brothers aren't rich enough yet and they could make a few billion in the time left to Earth before the oceans die and the forests burn. We can gamble with an oligarch like Trump announcing that science is wrong and his opinion is better. We can gamble...

Except we will lose everything if we the gamble is a bust which it will be. There is only one way out which is to stop using fossil fuels and the very very rich refuse to agree to that..

Place your bets ... Place your bets... The lives of your children or the rich being richer for no particular reason ( do the Koch brothers need more money? No actually but they want it anyway!) place your bets!

Their money or your life!

Place your bets!


No matter what "pressure" Exxon and Chevron will NEVER change their ways until we the consumers thrust upon them our demands by divestiture, boycott and use of direct action people power.


It hard for me to accept the premise that Scientists for Chevron and Exxon knew of the potential effects of Global Warming and those inside Government did not. This speaks to how the two are joined at the hip with there only appearing to be a conflict when the evidence so overwhelming that things like man made Global warming occur that the insiders on Governmnet have to pretend that had they know earlier something would have been done.


I agree. But first shareholders need to divest then sue. It's the only way to kill off the too big to fail corporation.


Here's where corporate constitutional rights play out:

Their limited liability shields them from culpability in all but the worst catastrophes they create, and their treasuries allow them to drag their feet through the courts until they ultimately win through attrition. They claim their corporate liability rights consistently much to the detriment of other living things on the planet.

Then there are the human rights they possess, the most commonly known one being first amendment rights to free speech, used with impunity to legally buy politicians.

If Exxon had any humanity at all, we wouldn't be in this mess, nor can we throw Exxon in jail for crimes against humanity.

When this thing really hits the fan, Exxon will act like a corporate structure to protect itself from liability, and it will act like a person in elections to stack the deck in it's favor. And it will just keep on keeping on it's bad actions forever, never dying off.

Basically the Constitution is a property rights document. (It was amended to add some human rights.) Corporations are property. The Supreme Court, not the legislature, gave human rights to property, creating a class of person equal under the law, with the ability to morph back and forth between property and person, in order to avoid responsibility and accountability.

Nothing will happen to Exxon until their constitutional human rights are abolished.


Oh ye of little faith, I'm sure they're working on a plan to destroy every hydrogen ion they can find--and it's all on our dime.


Considering that these companies are so dangerous that they have the power to put our world into an extinction event so catastrophic that we have not seen such a thing for 252 million years, I think that drastic measures need to be taken to reduce their influence. Because they are the most profitable corporation on Earth, they use their money to lie and deceive people about global warming, and probably put pressure on our governments for Middle Eastern war. Our young men and women pay with their lives for oil companies's profits. Now all the living things on this planet will pay for these companies' greed.

I think they need to be broken up or nationalized, have their subsidies removed, and bar them from "donating" to any politician's campaign. If we nationalized them, we could use their massive profits to turn our country 100 % green in a very short time.


Sue who? That sounds like something but it isn't anything really. Shareholders suing themselves? Talking philosophy is not talking the law. Morally wrong not legally wrong. It. Is up to the government to regulate. You two are discussing morals not business law. Does gasoline use cause smog? It did and does and it was regulated.

When Volkswagen falsified its pollution figures and rigged their cars that was culpable and people should be held responsible. Shareholders might try to sue saying they didn't know but they are not management in any case and if they can sue then they can be sued which negates the purpose of corporations in effect. Limited liability and all that.


Sue the Board of Directors.


You are very correct but then bigness that has been the trend since Bill Clinton's administration permitted Microsoft a virtual monopoly instead of using anti trust law to keep it from dominating the computer world in the beginning. The rise of the multibillionaire can also be traced to that era as Bill Gates became ever richer, others saw that they were free to do the same. The age of the neo robber barons began under Bill Clinton and so did the bank's too big to fail.

Do you still wonder why Wall St loves Hillary?


You have been misled following this thread as to understanding the law. Shareholders may under certain circumstances bring charges against management etc but they don't sue themselves. Were they misinformed even? Probably not. It wasn't illegal to cause global warming. Should the management be held responsible for lying to the public? Then would the shareholders then be held responsible for having allowed said management to be running their company? Who didn't know all these years? Who doesn't know now? Do you see a corporation being sued by the shareholders (suing themselves) for causing global warming in the present much less because they knew back then? The law is not justice...but it is the law. Many people fail to understand that. Worse is that we are talking corporate law which is one further step removed from justice than is criminal law etc.


The Constitution is exactly that. It is a document that elevates property rights above all others.

Those that wrote it were the property owning class and had great concerns about two major events. One was the Somsert decision in England which had a court ruling that the Slaves innate rights as a person superceded the owners right over him or her as property. The second was the treaty of Quebec which transferred the Contol of the Ohio territores to the jurisdiction of the newly annexed Quebec. This treaty closed future expansion of the Colonists into the Western territories and a Commission was struck to examine all of the land fraud that had been going on in those territories , fraud in which many of those same elite in the Colonies had their hands in.

After this a series of smaller actions by the Crown sparked further outrage such as the act which gave the East India Compnay preference when shipping goods to the Colonies, which threatened to put the Boston Merchants out of business as they were involved heavily in smuggling of slaves and tea and other goods.

Just as today where Politicians pass laws like the Patriot Act or other acts with fancy sounding titles such as those they clam are to protect a womans health meant to limit access to abortion , the Politicians of that day used words like "freedom and Liberty" to get the commons to buy into their initiatives..

I think if people exanine each of the original amendments in the context of the time and see them for what they were it abundantly clear it a property rights document.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST" John Adams.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." James Madison


I stand corrected. Divest.

If they don't divest and their assets become stranded as they should, can't a case be made to sue the members of the board of directors personally? Or does the corporate liability protection extend to the individual board members when malfeasance is proved?


OK, EOW, I am just going to have to send you a snark detector.


Back to being fixated on America again? Talking as if you were an American too? So now our history is everybody's history since you say current American foreign policy is open to criticism because it affects people worldwide? Our history and our constitution is ours and it is very tiresome to hear your constant hatred and denigration and misstatements about America. Why are you frequenting an American site if you hate America so much?

CD is American and acts like it. We have a tradition of free speech and Liberty that you constantly demean or simply overlook in favor of heaping scorn on us. See this website - CD.? It is American and like Bernie who is an American and all those who support him who are Americans... Why don't you give us a break okay? America is not only the right wing ... Someone needed to point that out to you.


I was banned on the Craigslist's Science / Math forum for discussing
climate change. and 9/11.


Once more you are fixated on me. Go see your shrink. You have a serious problem. See what YOU have to say does not bother me. It not all that important.