New York (AFP)
A judge on Tuesday dismissed the state of New York accusing oil giant ExxonMobil of misleading investors on the financial impact of climate change, a disappointment for environmental organizations that saw the issue as a test before other actions in justice.
After three weeks of trial in October and November, New York Judge Barry Ostrager found that the New York State Attorney, who presented the case as an illustration of the hiding efforts that the oil companies would be guilty of climate change, failed in the trial to present "overriding evidence" that ExxonMobil "made statements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled responsible investors".
The state of New York, a Democratic bastion that wants to be at the forefront of the climate battle, has "cited no witness claiming to have been misled," said the judge in his decision of 55 pages. And all the witnesses cited, by the prosecution as well as the defense, expressed themselves "in a uniformly favorable manner to ExxonMobil", he added.
Among these witnesses, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former CEO of the company, had testified for several hours to explain how the company had accounted for climate risk in his accounts, refuting the prosecutor's allegations. .
The decision is a snub for New York prosecutor Letitia James, whose case against ExxonMobil had followed some three years of investigation.
In a brief statement on Tuesday, however, she congratulated herself for "forcing ExxonMobil to respond publicly to internal decisions that have deceived investors," and promised to "continue to fight to end climate change."
ExxonMobil lambasted a case that resulted in "millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, without advancing efforts to reduce the risk of climate change."
The company "will continue to invest in the search for innovative technologies to reduce emissions while meeting the company's growing energy demand," she added.
- Multiplication of complaints -
While many environmental activists saw the case as evidence of the oil companies' contempt for their impact on the climate, the case was very technical: the hearings revolved around sophisticated tools used by the company to evaluate the situation. profitability of potential investments or make very long-term projections of its activity.
The prosecution argued that the company used assessments of its "carbon cost" - the costs associated with its greenhouse gas emissions - differing in terms of its investor presentations or internal calculations of the profitability of future projects.
For the prosecutor, this presentation "misleading" would have resulted in an overvaluation of the group's shares, with damage to shareholders potentially worth $ 1.6 billion.
The company, and in particular Mr. Tillerson, had admitted to using two different estimates of the carbon cost but explained that this corresponded to very different projection levels, one "strategic", the other more "micro-economic" , without consequences for its accounts or investors.
Mr. Tillerson, ExxonMobil's boss from 2007 to 2016, had even given extensive testimony to explain the growing importance that the company, under his leadership, had given to climate risk.
However, this ruling promises to be followed by other climate change related lawsuits against ExxonMobil and other oil companies.
The New York judge also pointed out that he did not intend to "absolve ExxonMobil", but that he had to settle "a case of stock market fraud, not a climate change file".
"We are at a turning point, the New York complaint has paved the way for state prosecutors to hold oil polluters like ExxonMobil to account," Greenpeace USA said after the decision. "Like tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical industry, oil majors face the consequences of decades of scientific distortion and misleading marketing."
Cities, counties and other US states have already filed lawsuits demanding the payment of damages or work necessitated by global warming.
The state of Massachusetts filed a complaint against ExxonMobil late October, accusing the company of misleading investors but also consumers on the climate impact of its products.
© 2019 AFP