Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Government Earth

Exxon Sues California Over Climate Disclosure Laws (reuters.com) 89

Posted by EditorDavid from the not-easy-being-green dept.
"Exxon Mobil sued California on Friday," reports Reuters, "challenging two state laws that require large companies to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks." In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Exxon argued that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling Exxon to "serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees," and asked the court to block the state of California from enforcing the laws. Exxon said the laws force it to adopt California's preferred frameworks for climate reporting, which it views as misleading and counterproductive...

The California laws were supported by several big companies including Apple, Ikea and Microsoft, but opposed by several major groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called them "onerous." SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than $1 billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026. The law requires the disclosure of both the companies' own emissions and indirect emissions by their suppliers and customers. SB 261 requires companies that operate in the state with over $500 million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks and strategies to mitigate risk. Exxon also argued that SB 261 conflicts with existing federal securities laws, which already regul

"The First Amendment bars California from pursuing a policy of stigmatization by forcing Exxon Mobil to describe its non-California business activities using the State's preferred framing," Exxon said in the lawsuit.
Exxon Mobil "asks the court to prevent the laws from going into effect next year," reports the Associated Press: In its complaint, ExxonMobil says it has for years publicly disclosed its greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related business risks, but it fundamentally disagrees with the state's new reporting requirements. The company would have to use "frameworks that place disproportionate blame on large companies like ExxonMobil" for the purpose of shaming such companies, the complaint states...

A spokesperson for the office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in an email that it was "truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exxon Sues California Over Climate Disclosure Laws More

Exxon Sues California Over Climate Disclosure Laws

Comments Filter:

  • Fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrahamJ ( 241784 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @08:11PM (#65750674)

    Take away their FA rights then. That was a stupid idea anyway.

  • It will only take on or two major oil companies to stop selling gasoline in California for the California government and politicians to stop using this as a way to build a set of political campaign issues. Exxon, or one of the majors could do the Walmart Chicago strategy, where Walmart was going to open stores around, but outside the city of Chicago to avoid the taxes and other regulatory threats maid by Chichago's city government.

    Not for or against this here.

    Given that making Exxon file additional governm

    • Re:Exxon should just stop selling in California (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @08:39PM (#65750720)

      I would gladly see Exxon and all other oil companies and refineries leave the state. Fuck them. But they won't because they make billions here, and because California would just buy more electric cars, hastening the inevitable demise of fossil fuels.

      As for California's special blends of fuel, they do reduce air pollution and should be mandated nationwide.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by will4 ( 7250692 )

        > I would gladly see Exxon and all other oil companies and refineries leave the state.

        Exxon could just sell wholesale tank-loads of gasoline in adjacent states, let some other company blend it and bring it into California to sell.

        • I don't know how easy or difficult the blending is. Petrochem is a complex field. But Exxon are fucking assholes. As are Chevron and every other company. People getting cancer? Global warming? Not our problem. You can't prove shit.

          • Blending is simple. Keeping costs down via blending is complex. Fixing an off spec tank is far more expensive than just getting the blend right out of the refinery in the first place. There's no economic incentive to do what the GP said.

        • That's not easy. The blending components that keep a fuel to a stringent spec are typically more expensive to produce, and if you need to "fix" a blend rather than get it right the first time it becomes very expensive since it causes you to overshoot on a large range of requirements.

          A typical example is Alkylate, it's often referred to as liquid gold. Gasoline engines could run on it alone, and it can be blended into any offspec tank to fix the blend. However it is also the lowest yield and most expensive t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kick6 ( 1081615 )

        I would gladly see Exxon and all other oil companies and refineries leave the state. Fuck them. But they won't because they make billions here, and because California would just buy more electric cars, hastening the inevitable demise of fossil fuels.

        As for California's special blends of fuel, they do reduce air pollution and should be mandated nationwide.

        As someone who works in energy finance, I can assure you that waving your hands around "they make billions here" is inaccurate. As a percentage of their total footprint, California is small. And California is already so onerous that even my employer is HIGHLY reluctant to recommit a dime to California after we finally exited or last asset there.

    • Re:Exxon should just stop selling in California (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nicholas Grayhame ( 10502767 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @08:59PM (#65750756)

      climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern

      • California's governor, Gavin Newsom is in the running for the Democrat party presidential nomination and holding big oil's feet to the fire is a vote gaining thing.

        https://polymarket.com/event/d... [polymarket.com]

        OUTCOME % CHANCE
        Gavin Newsom 35%
        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 12%
        Pete Buttigieg 6% ...

        • sure. but that doesn't have an impact on its validity

          just because a politician used it, that doesn't mean it's false

        • Vote Ganing thing: explanation (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @09:42PM (#65750814) Homepage

          How to win an election:
          Before the election propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.

          How to be good at your job (as a politician or any other job):
          At work, propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.

          How to be a shmuck:
          Look at politicians that are good at their job and complain that they are just trying to win an election.

          Voting Gaining Things are what Democracy is all about.

        • "climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern"

          I forgot to use 'just':

          climate change isn't just a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern

          my bad

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by XXongo ( 3986865 )

            "climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern"
            I forgot to use 'just':
            climate change isn't just a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern

            Unfortunately, you were right the first time. Climate change isn't a campaign issue.

            When you look at what issues people pay attention to when they vote, climate change at the bottom of the list.
            https://news.gallup.com/poll/6... [gallup.com]

        • I would bet the No on Gavin Newsom if it wasn't 3 years away. There's no way Iowa is voting for that guy.

      • climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality.

        It's both.

    • Re:Exxon should just stop selling in California (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @09:57PM (#65750830)

      Hate California all you want, but California is the fourth largest economy in the world. If you're the CEO of a corporation that refuses to do business with the fourth largest economy in the world, your shareholders will hang you out by the balls and let the California condors have their way with you.

    • It will only take on or two major oil companies to stop selling gasoline in California for the California government and politicians to stop using this as a way to build a set of political campaign issues.

      That is a statement that has been repeated in literally every jurisdiction around the world many times as fuel standards have changed over the years. Several companies have even tried this, the governments called them out on their bluff, and then laughed at them as they spent money upgrading their refineries as it turned out the "liquid gold" they used to sell became "liquid lead" thanks to regulations.

      California is a big market for gasoline. Precisely no company will pull out of it over this. They may manu

  • Exxon argued that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling Exxon to "serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees"

    climate change isn't an idea, it's reality

    • climate change isn't an idea, it's reality

      Just because something is real doesn't mean the government can force private corporations to speak about it.

      This isn't just stating the reality, they are forced to frame their words in a way that favors government policy. There's "compelled speech" in a manner in having labels on foods and medications have a label that states clearly and accurately what is inside. There can be warnings on the "reality" that consumption of tobacco and alcohol products is bad for your health. Why force the large oil compan

      • SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than $1 billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026. The law requires the disclosure of both the companies' own emissions and indirect emissions by their suppliers and customers. SB 261 requires companies that operate in the state with over $500 million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks and strategies to mitigate risk

        wait, all I see is disclosure/reporting. I don't see any "compelled speech". I don't see them being required to acknowledge something.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Phact ( 4649149 )

        What private corporations are we talking about? These are public corporations with the benefiots that come with that, and with compelled speech being part of the deal. AKA financial statements and earnings calls.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        This isn't just stating the reality, they are forced to frame their words in a way that favors government policy.

        No, they aren't. They are required to provide the numbers that the government demands. They're free to precede it with a wall of text that explains why they don't feel that blaming them for people choosing to burn their gasoline, rather than, for example, using it as a beverage, produces CO2 emissions all they want to. That's their choice. What they don't have the right to do is not provide the data.

        • I'm more likely to believe a high priced lawyer working for Exxon than a rando on the internet. Maybe that is what the court will rule but for now there's apparently enough questions on what this law means to take this to court.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            I'm more likely to believe a high priced lawyer working for Exxon than a rando on the internet. Maybe that is what the court will rule but for now there's apparently enough questions on what this law means to take this to court.

            I'm less likely to believe a lawyer working for Exxon than a homeless person on the street with a sign saying "The End Is Nigh!" At least the homeless person doesn't know that the things he is saying have no basis in reality.

            Lawyers have a responsibility to represent their clients' interests no matter how bats**t they are. Their opinion is nothing more than the opinion of their corporate bill payers. And their bill payers are one of the more sociopathic corporations out there.

            Exxon is a company that ac

      • Just because something is real doesn't mean the government can force private corporations to speak about it.

        Since when? RJ Reynolds Nabisco isn't paying for "Nicotine is addictive" posters at your corner store out of the kindness of their hearts.

        • As I recall those "smoking is bad for you" posters are part of a settlement in a lawsuit. If Exxon loses this case then maybe this isn't a 1st Amendment issue but a matter of public disclosure for the benefit of public health and safety. Until then I'm on the side of Exxon, and even after the case I may still side with Exxon depending on the reasoning used for supporting this disclosure law.

  • The fact that they are suing already speaks volumes. A more intelligent way to check mate them would have been to have different tiers of reporting necessary tied in to different emission levels in order to get them to dox themselves.

  • More assholes claimign first amendment (Score:3)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @09:45PM (#65750820) Homepage

    More examples of vile shmucks trying to convince courts that they are allowed to break the law because of the first amendment. NO. Doing what the government orders you to do is not being forced to support an idea. It is obeying the law.

    The first amendment does not mean you get to stop the government from requiring you to do things. It does not mean you can say whatever you want - you can still be sued for slander etc.

    • Re:More assholes claimign first amendment (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Saturday October 25, 2025 @10:17PM (#65750856)

      The first amendment does not mean you get to stop the government from requiring you to do things. It does not mean you can say whatever you want - you can still be sued for slander etc.

      We have kind of the opposite thing going on here in Canada.

      Faced with consumer-protection provisions aimed at false corporate environmental claims, some companies have stopped making them entirely [nationalmagazine.ca].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        We have kind of the opposite thing going on here in Canada.

        Faced with consumer-protection provisions aimed at false corporate environmental claims, some companies have stopped making them entirely.

        And that is a bad thing how? It means they can't make false claims about being good for the environment. Companies that do make the effort get to keep it on the label. Consumers can decide if those claims are worth the extra cost and vote with their dollars accordingly.

        Meanwhile if they could put those claims on w

        • Companies that do make the effort get to keep it on the label.

          They don't though, because the law is very gray so it is not worth the risk. And if they are no longer able to take credit, not much point in doing it at all.

          I'm not against truth in advertising, but ultimately there is no verifiable truth in any multi year plan because they are all fungible. The government itself would never be able to conform to its own law either. They constantly make promises they don't keep, but the law does not apply to them.

  • The California laws were supported by several big companies including Apple, Ikea and Microsoft, but opposed by several major groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called them "onerous."

    what will be onerous are the lives of your grandchildren you greedy bastards

  • The great thing about lawsuits is that you can easily countersue, and then both sides get full discovery of everything the other side has.

  • What are you afraid of? Chicken??

  • Exxon, BGIP, Santander, EY and a few others are engaged in an existential fight to destroy climate reporting. They are attacking the concept of Scope 2 and 3 reporting, because they argue that the double-counting leads to them being treated unfairly. But the obvious consequence of the approach they're pushing is to allow oil majors to disclaim all the carbon impacts of all the burning of alll fuel they produce, and only count the carbon costs associated with their production. They are truly among the worst

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I say treat them fairly! At this time, with all the damage they have done, that would mean lining them against a wall ...
      Since I am against the death "penalty", I think life in prison and all their assets seized would be what should happen.

  • Anyone who thinks humans are going to avoid catastrophic climate collapse withing decades is utterly deluded.

  • Well - if you can get away with not publishing stuff (that you are required to) because you "do not agree with it" (and in the USA: Companies apparently have "rights" just like people??), what's next?

    "No - we refuse to publish our financial statement, as it conflicts with our right to free speech!" (translation: It makes us look bad. Can't have that)

  • Every judge 'violates' that right when compelling witnesses to testify or go to prison.

  • ...cry the online warriors, typing on their always-on energy guzzling devices, lol.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And there is always some idiot and asshole that wants to shift blame in some stupid way. Found one!

  • I seldom agree with Newsom's pandering but Linus was right, If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth. -often attributed to Carl Sagan

  • So the want to hide the evil they do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 26, 2025 @08:47AM (#65751248)

    Not surprising and it shows yet again that these enterprises cannot be trusted in any way. And that is exactly the reason why they must publish this data: accountability.

  • Surely if it's decided that disclosing something you don't like is against the First Amendment, then any libertarian will be able to say that disclosing their income and expenses forces them to "serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which they disagree."

  • Leave.

    Let them fill their fuel gap with sunshine.

    Taking away that huge tax revenue will have more effect than a court case.

  • Exxon and other companies are terrified that transparency will give the public information that can be used to sue them (like big tobacco was). And they're probably right too. I can't imagine they haven't formed cartels like tobacco did.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close