California Sues ExxonMobil For Alleged Decades of Deception Around Plastic Recycling (cnn.com) 29
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil on Monday alleging the company carried out a "decades-long campaign of deception" in which the oil and gas giant misled the public on the merits of plastic recycling. The complaint accuses the company of using slick marketing and misleading public statements for half a century to claim recycling was an effective way to deal with plastic pollution, according to a press release from Bonta's office published Monday. It alleges the company continues to perpetuate the "myth" of recycling today. The case, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, seeks to compel ExxonMobil "to end its deceptive practices that threaten the environment and the public," the statement said.
Bonta is also asking the court to rule ExxonMobil must pay civil penalties, among other payments, for the harm inflicted by plastic pollution in California. "Plastics are everywhere, from the deepest parts of our oceans, the highest peaks on earth, and even in our bodies, causing irreversible damage -- in ways known and unknown -- to our environment and potentially our health," Bonta said. "For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn't possible. ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardizing our health," he said. [...]
Lawsuits against oil and gas companies for their role in climate change and air pollution are becoming more common, but Monday's is the first in the country to take on a fossil fuel company for its messaging around plastic recycling. The statement said that ExxonMobil "falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable, when in fact the vast majority of plastic products are not and likely cannot be recycled, either technically or economically." The lawsuit also alleges Exxon "continues to deceive the public by touting "advanced recycling" as the solution to the plastic waste and pollution crisis." Advanced -- or chemical -- recycling is a technology promoted by many oil companies, but which has been plagued by missed targets, closed or shelved plants and reports of fires and spills. [...] At the heart of the suit is the allegation ExxonMobil's messaging caused consumers to buy and use more single-use plastic than they otherwise would have. In response to the lawsuit, ExxonMobil pointed the finger back at California, which it said has an ineffective recycling system that officials have known about for decades: "They failed to act, and now they seek to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills."
ExxonMobil contends chemical recycling does work. "We're bringing real solutions, recycling plastic waste that couldn't be recycled by traditional methods," the company said in a statement.
A copy of the Attorney General's complaint can be found here (PDF).
Bonta is also asking the court to rule ExxonMobil must pay civil penalties, among other payments, for the harm inflicted by plastic pollution in California. "Plastics are everywhere, from the deepest parts of our oceans, the highest peaks on earth, and even in our bodies, causing irreversible damage -- in ways known and unknown -- to our environment and potentially our health," Bonta said. "For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn't possible. ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardizing our health," he said. [...]
Lawsuits against oil and gas companies for their role in climate change and air pollution are becoming more common, but Monday's is the first in the country to take on a fossil fuel company for its messaging around plastic recycling. The statement said that ExxonMobil "falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable, when in fact the vast majority of plastic products are not and likely cannot be recycled, either technically or economically." The lawsuit also alleges Exxon "continues to deceive the public by touting "advanced recycling" as the solution to the plastic waste and pollution crisis." Advanced -- or chemical -- recycling is a technology promoted by many oil companies, but which has been plagued by missed targets, closed or shelved plants and reports of fires and spills. [...] At the heart of the suit is the allegation ExxonMobil's messaging caused consumers to buy and use more single-use plastic than they otherwise would have. In response to the lawsuit, ExxonMobil pointed the finger back at California, which it said has an ineffective recycling system that officials have known about for decades: "They failed to act, and now they seek to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills."
ExxonMobil contends chemical recycling does work. "We're bringing real solutions, recycling plastic waste that couldn't be recycled by traditional methods," the company said in a statement.
A copy of the Attorney General's complaint can be found here (PDF).
OK. So now it's out in the open (Score:2)
We know plastic can't be recycled economically. We know plastic manufacturers have been engaging in PR campaigns to deceive us into thinking recycling was the answer. Now they're blaming us for not catching on faster.
Somewhere there must be a wall we can line the execs up against before we shoot them.
Barring that, there are trillions and trillions of dollars needed to clean up the mess and trillions more needed to wean us off plastics. We need to be taxing that stuff at the source starting about 1970, coll
I'm good with this (Score:3)
Exxon, Chevron, and the majors should all clean things up. Stop selling oil, gasoline, diesel and oil products in California in 30 days.
It will help California to not collect the 60 cents of state-level gasoline tax per gallon https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ne... [nbcsandiego.com]
It will also help California not collect the $7+ billion in gasoline taxes each year. https://advocacy.calchamber.co... [calchamber.com]
This is the same thing that Puerto Rico tried a while back to get a never-ending tax/penalty revenue stream from the oil companies, just like the big tobacco settlement did 20 (?) years ago in the USA.
I'm good with the oil majors pulling out of California. At some point they will pull out of a state that a) wants the tax money / sin tax money, and b) wants a political campaign - oil is evil, and c) wants to provide work for an army of government bureaucrat regulators and safety inspectors
Question is when (Score:2)
When will the amount of regulation and industry targeting by the government will seriously break a fundamental part of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah man! The penchant for cannibalism ensures an extensive stock of "long pork"
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same thing that Puerto Rico tried a while back to get a never-ending tax/penalty revenue stream from the oil companies, just like the big tobacco settlement did 20 (?) years ago in the USA.
What dumb shit conservative talking point is this? You want to know why big tobacco settled? It's very simple actually.
Here is video of tobacco executives in court and under oath saying nicotine is not addictive. https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacc... [ucsf.edu]
That's why they had to pay billions of dollars. Not that big government is picking on the poor little tobacco companies. Because they claimed for years their products were safe and non addictive and slowly poisoned people.
Honestly, the best thing that could ever hap
Same solution to get at the money (Score:2)
The tobacco settlement established that a large number of attorneys + state governments could take on and win a multi-decade revenue stream from a very large industry.
These more modern attempts, while not having the same evidence of harm as tobacco, are just modern attempts to get the multi-decade revenue stream paid from a very large industry to state governments.
It's not left, right or center politically. It's not a defense of oil industry and plastics. It's about how to find a workable solution which do
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon Valdeze (Score:3)
After the Exxon Valdeze 1989 oil spill ecological disaster, Exxon and the major oil companies sold all of their transport ships, transport barges (to Kirby corp), etc. to other companies to get out of the liability of transporting crude oil.
Expect something similar to happen with California where the oil majors essentially will have no assets in California to sue, no money in California and gasoline sold to middlemen who then sell it in California and the middlemen are incorporated outside the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Exxon, is that you?
Brought out the knee-jerk responses (Score:2)
Simply pointing out California's at opposition objectives of collecting tax revenue from oil companies and demonizing the oil companies brought out the knee-jerk responses.
Yes. Bhopal Union Carbide is another example, lead paint / lead in gasoline another, Love Canal another, open pits for storing oil and chemicals another, testing chemical wearpons just outside Washington DC for WWI (now covered over by houses) is another, dumping tires and batteries off Florida coast another, teflon production turning roc
Re: (Score:2)
Actually oil companies are demons. They don't need anyone to demonize them, just someone to reveal what they are really doing.
The prototype of demon corporations were the tobacco companies. They sold a product that was addictive and killed people and they knew it. Then they lied to everyone, employed bogus science, bought legislation and legislators, and covered up their crimes. When there was finally a reckoning those responsible essentially got away with it. They kept thei
Re: (Score:2)
>> Stop selling oil, gasoline, diesel and oil products
The issue is obviously about plastic pollution, which has nothing to do with anything you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! Destroy the local economy.
Then point and laugh as the the state disappears up its own asshole while the Commie Kleptocrats dismantle the state down to the bedrock and begin promptly eating one another!
It couldn't happen to nicer folk!
No longer a conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Ten years ago, if you claimed plastic recycling was an oil industry hoax, you would have been called a nut. A recycling and climate change denier. Now, totally mainstream consensus opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Plastics industry executive came out ~5 years, conveniently at/after retiring, saying that the entire 1980s plastic recycling and labeling different grades of plastic for recycling was an advertising PR move since there was no viable way to recycle large amounts of plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies are notorious liars. https://www.wired.com/2013/01/... [wired.com]
I noticed how you smuggled in (Score:2)
That assumes you explained your reasoning. Those plastic recycling plants have been shipping the refuge overseas for a very very long time and it wouldn't have been that hard to get a hold of that information. A lot of those companies would be big enough to be publicly traded and the information would have been public. The only reason this did
We've acknowledged it's bullshit. Now what? (Score:3)
So we admit that recycling is bullshit, as if many of us hadn't figured that out quite some time ago. So, now what? We can go back to glass bottles instead of plastic ones, sure, and the soda companies and others will cry and whine about the cost of handling them. We still use aluminum cans for things -- but aren't they plastic lined? Plastic wrap keeps many perishables, like meat, from getting contaminated, and from leaking all over the place; do we go back to paper and put up with the problems that presents?
Basically: what are the alternatives for everything using plastics in single-use scenarios? Or are plant-based plastics, that are biodegradable, acceptable substitutes, or are there downsides to them that are deal-breakers?
I know this is a big subject, and I think this is one of the places where it can begin to be discussed. Like with so many things, we can't keep doing things the same way anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are plant-based plastics, that are biodegradable, acceptable substitutes, or are there downsides to them that are deal-breakers?
The useful plant-based plastics sold as biodegradable don't actually break down much faster than petrol plastic.
\o/ (Score:1)
Stage Left:
* The world's most expensive legal team prepares to present evidence that true === false
Dear ExxonMobile (Score:2)
Please stop selling your products in California.
It's NOT FAIR (Score:2)
To exxcoriate a company for executing on its core competency!
God, the US idiocy (Score:2)
First of all, we know that plastic can be recycled. It's done in the EU. We also know that it's cheaper to use non-recycled plastic, so there's need for laws to help the cycle work. We also know that not all plastics can be recycled, so there's need for laws that force using recyclable plastics. And sure, according to stats online only about 40% of plastic is recycled in the EU, but that's about 40% more than in the US.
So what is the US doing? Gives up. What does this lawsuit achieve? Absolutely nothing. Is