Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Damages, the law focused podcast
Speaker 1: from Drilled. We have a new season coming June third,
Speaker 1: all about the Energy Transfer versus Greenpeace case and the
Speaker 1: countersuit in Europe where Greenpeace has invoked the EU's anti
Speaker 1: slap statute to suit energy Transfer for harassment. It is
Speaker 1: a complicated and fascinating story and I cannot wait for
Speaker 1: you to hear it. In the meantime, I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring you an update on climate cases in the US,
Speaker 1: especially given some of the recent efforts by the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to quash some of them. To help me out
Speaker 1: with that, I've got Kathy Mulvey with the Union of
Speaker 1: Concerned Scientists here today. Kathy is the accountability campaign director
Speaker 1: at UCS, which just released a report called Decades of
Speaker 1: Deception that pulls together in one place all the primary
Speaker 1: documents out there showing what the fossil fuel industry knew
Speaker 1: about climate change, when it knew it, and what they
Speaker 1: did with that information. You might think you already know
Speaker 1: this story. I thought I did, but I learned a
Speaker 1: few things and I hope you will too. I've read
Speaker 1: the report super interesting, and I have a bunch of
Speaker 1: questions for you. But I want to start with the
Speaker 1: question I expect to get from people, which is, Okay,
Speaker 1: what's new, what's new that we didn't already know in
Speaker 1: this report? What do you want to appoint people to
Speaker 1: you on that front?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So what's new is really that we've put these
Speaker 2: documents together in a coherent narrative, so you know, these
Speaker 2: are primary sources about what major fossil fuel corporations knew when,
Speaker 2: about the harms that their products would cause to climate
Speaker 2: and our society, and what they did in spite of
Speaker 2: what they knew. So you know, it's the physical and
Speaker 2: natural science basis of how the companies were aware of
Speaker 2: and even conducting some of that internally, and also the
Speaker 2: basis of climate attribution science as that field has been developing.
Speaker 2: It's also the historical rack of disinformation over the decade,
Speaker 2: from the outright climate science denial to how that has
Speaker 2: become greenwashing, distraction, delay, and even efforts to intimidate climate advocate.
Speaker 2: So you know, one part of the story that is
Speaker 2: still developing really to a hacking scheme that targeted some
Speaker 2: staff members at my organization, the Unit of Concerned Scientists,
Speaker 2: and several other public interest organizations working to hold fossil
Speaker 2: fuel companies accountable for their role in climate change.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to ask you about more details about
Speaker 1: that whole unfolding story and which is fascinating the first
Speaker 1: I'm curious about. Well, to your point, just a minute ago,
Speaker 1: as I was reading this, I was like, actually, I
Speaker 1: think this is the first I've seen of a report
Speaker 1: that does combine all of these things in one place.
Speaker 2: And then I'm wondering.
Speaker 1: About the timings. What drove the desire to release this now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I've been working with the Union of
Speaker 2: Concerned Scientists now for almost ten years, and one of
Speaker 2: the first projects that I undertook, actually, the first project
Speaker 2: I undertook was the twenty fifteen climate Discase Dossiers and
Speaker 2: collaboration with former colleague Seth Schulman, who had years before
Speaker 2: that authored the publication Smote, Mirrors and Hot Air that
Speaker 2: shows how the fossil fuel industry has employed many of
Speaker 2: the same strategies and tactics, even some of the same
Speaker 2: front groups and scientists as the tobacco industry, and so
Speaker 2: there are few factors here. The advances in US climate
Speaker 2: accountability ligation against major fossil fuel corporations over climate deception
Speaker 2: and damages, and much of that really relies on evidence
Speaker 2: of disinformation and deception campaigns and many of the document
Speaker 2: that are referenced here in the report. And now, of course,
Speaker 2: the threat that the Trump administration and a fossil fuel
Speaker 2: friendly Congress pose to efforts to hold the fossil fuel
Speaker 2: industry accountable and to the advances, the hard fought advances
Speaker 2: to bend the global warming emissions curve down and accelerate
Speaker 2: the clean energy transition, really mean that the timing is important.
Speaker 2: We need this evidence to be easily accessible and this
Speaker 2: story to be told in a way that people, policy makers, litigators, shareholders,
Speaker 2: and investors can really access it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, Now this is a big question, and we
Speaker 1: can probably spend an hour talking just about this, but
Speaker 1: I'm hoping you can give folks a little bit of
Speaker 1: a summary of where we're at right now with the
Speaker 1: threats from Trump. You know, which states have been sued
Speaker 1: to try to stop these cases or super polluter laws
Speaker 1: from going forward, and to the extent that we know
Speaker 1: so far, what has the result of that been, Have
Speaker 1: there been cases thrown out? How is the litigation responding
Speaker 1: to this attempt to really quash these cases.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So we note that during his campaign, Trump expressed
Speaker 2: opposition to efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry liable
Speaker 2: for climate change and also sought to raise a billion
Speaker 2: dollars from the fossil fuel industry. And we've seen the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry have access to the Trump administration and Congress,
Speaker 2: and there have been multiple moves, and one relates to
Speaker 2: the state level efforts to hold fossil fuel corporation accountable.
Speaker 2: So President Trump issued an executive order that attacked states'
Speaker 2: rights to hold fossil fuel companies accountable through legislation and litigation,
Speaker 2: you know, among other efforts that states are pursuing for
Speaker 2: environmental justice. That was one part of that. And we
Speaker 2: have already seen the Department of Justice take action by
Speaker 2: suing preemptively actually Hawaii and Michigan before they filed climate
Speaker 2: accountability litigation. You know, Hawaii went ahead and filed its lawsuits,
Speaker 2: so was not intimidated by that action. The administration also
Speaker 2: sued Vermont in New York State over in their climate
Speaker 2: super fun laws, that laws designed to make fossil fuel
Speaker 2: polluters pay for their role in climate harms. And so
Speaker 2: that's what way that we are already seeing this administration
Speaker 2: take action. We know these cases are advancing in state
Speaker 2: courts around the country where they were filed, and as
Speaker 2: you've covered, you know, the fossil fuel industry it sought
Speaker 2: for up to eight years in some of the cases
Speaker 2: to use procedural maneuvers to.
Speaker 3: Keep them from getting into the courtroom and being heard
Speaker 3: on their merits. And this kind of effort through a
Speaker 3: friendly administration to throw a wrench in the advance of
Speaker 3: those cases really indicates what a threat that litigation poses
Speaker 3: to the fossil fuel industry. So that's one big part
Speaker 3: of how we've seen the Trump administration taking the side
Speaker 3: of the fossil fuel industry. And I should say the
Speaker 3: backdrop to all of this is that all of us
Speaker 3: are experiencing climate impacts in.
Speaker 4: Our day to day lives, right and we're increasingly aware
Speaker 4: of the preventable harms that have been worsened by this
Speaker 4: industry's deception campaign.
Speaker 2: So, you know, another thing to talk specifically about in
Speaker 2: terms of the interventions on the side of the fossil
Speaker 2: fuel industry is the Securities and Exchange Commission last year
Speaker 2: issued a final rule on corporate climate disclosure. And this
Speaker 2: was after many years, and it was significantly watered down
Speaker 2: from what it could have been. But it would compel
Speaker 2: publicly traded companies to assess and report on how climate
Speaker 2: change will affect their bottom lines and by extension, investors
Speaker 2: and the public. And part of the story that we're
Speaker 2: telling in decades deceit is how industry groups that are
Speaker 2: heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry, like the US
Speaker 2: Chamber of Commerce, have sought to water down that rule
Speaker 2: and then sued to block its implementation, and those securities
Speaker 2: and changed commission under Trump pens indicate it that it
Speaker 2: defend those rules so that vital information for shareholders and
Speaker 2: investors can have now not on getting access to that
Speaker 2: information through the sec is not on the timeline that
Speaker 2: it could have been.
Speaker 1: I'll ask you too about how this all kind of
Speaker 1: fits into the global context, because you know these are
Speaker 1: global companies. This evidence is potentially useful outside of the
Speaker 1: country as well. Do you have any thoughts on whether
Speaker 1: these companies that are getting a huge helping hand by
Speaker 1: the US government could end up being held accountable somewhere else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a really good point. The companies that were
Speaker 2: looking at in this report so exon mobil shell in particular,
Speaker 2: but they, the members of the American Petroleum Institute, are
Speaker 2: global in scope, and so the evidence of the deliberate
Speaker 2: campaign of disinformation dating back as far as fifty years
Speaker 2: and in terms of the renowned scientists doctor Edward Teyler
Speaker 2: briefing executives at an American Petroleum Institute event in nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty nine, you know, and then looking forward to the
Speaker 2: early nineteen eighties, I mean, this is a really critical
Speaker 2: point where major fossil fuel companies had really amassed a
Speaker 2: remarkably detailed understanding of the potentially catastrophic effects of their
Speaker 2: products for people the planet. And it's worth noting that
Speaker 2: according to the data set of the carbon majors that's
Speaker 2: hosted by Influence Map one hundred and twenty two, oil, gas, coal,
Speaker 2: and cement companies are responsible for seventy five percent of
Speaker 2: all industrial carbon dioxide emissions since nineteen eighty one. So,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of the consequences of the deception
Speaker 2: and disinformation and delayed action in the US and globally,
Speaker 2: those kinds of numbers are enormously significant.
Speaker 1: Okay, I want to how do you watch us through
Speaker 1: this hacking story. I've been a couple of bits of
Speaker 1: reporting on this that have come out as we learn more,
Speaker 1: but if you could just sort of summarize it for people,
Speaker 1: what happened here and what do we.
Speaker 4: Know so far?
Speaker 2: Are Yeah, so this information has been coming into the
Speaker 2: public into the public domain for a few years now. Right,
Speaker 2: So we know that between twenty fifteen and twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: hackers attempted to infiltrate the email accounts of key staff
Speaker 2: members the Union of Concerned Scientists and several other nonprofits.
Speaker 2: And through a report published by the Citizen Lab in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, we learned about that spearfishing campaign, and actually
Speaker 2: one person has pleaded guilty in connection with that campaign. Right.
Speaker 2: A Israeli private investigator named abiram Azzari and the US
Speaker 2: government sentencing memo for him in twenty twenty three said
Speaker 2: that published articles about documents that were stolen and leak
Speaker 2: through that hack really appeared to be designed to undermine
Speaker 2: the integrity of work by state attorneys general to hold
Speaker 2: Exonomobile accountable and also to attack the credibility of some
Speaker 2: of the individual targets of the hacking scheme, So that
Speaker 2: information has been out there for a little bit of time.
Speaker 2: Just this year, new evidence has come to light through
Speaker 2: US government filings and through further investigative journalism and those
Speaker 2: court documents related to an attempt to extradite on It
Speaker 2: four Lett is another accused middleman in this operation. This
Speaker 2: suggests that the US government has evidence that the criminal
Speaker 2: scheme was indirectly paid for by Exon Mobile, and that
Speaker 2: one of Exon Mobiles then lobbying firms, the Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: Based DCI Group, provided a list of targets to a
Speaker 2: middleman link to the hackers and allegedly sent the fruits
Speaker 2: of the hacking to the oil and gas company. So
Speaker 2: you know, this is this is unprecedented, I think in
Speaker 2: terms of fossil fuel accountability. I know from a work
Speaker 2: on the tobacco industry decades ago that the tobacco companies
Speaker 2: conducted surveillance and sought to infiltrate not only public health
Speaker 2: and public interests organizations, but the World Health Organization's itself.
Speaker 2: So the latest development was at the end of April,
Speaker 2: the UK court did order the extradition or agreed with
Speaker 2: the order to the abstradite at FORLA to the US.
Speaker 2: He does have the possibility of appeal, and we expect
Speaker 2: that he may he may seek to appeal that decision.
Speaker 2: But these revelations and the latest step in the process
Speaker 2: have really been an important step toward accountability and toward
Speaker 2: getting to the bottom of this hacking scheme. You know
Speaker 2: who hired and paid for these hackers, LifeLock.
Speaker 1: How can I help the irs that I filed my
Speaker 1: return but I haven't.
Speaker 5: One in four tax paying Americans is paid the price
Speaker 5: of identity fraud?
Speaker 1: What do I do my refund?
Speaker 5: Though I'm freaking out, don't worry. I can fix this.
Speaker 5: LifeLock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back
Speaker 5: with up to three million dollars in coverage.
Speaker 1: I'm so relieved.
Speaker 5: No problem.
Speaker 2: I'll be with you every step the way.
Speaker 5: One in four was a fraud paying American not anymore.
Speaker 5: Save up to forty percent your first year. Visit LifeLock
Speaker 5: dot com, slash podcast terms apply.
Speaker 1: I worked on the story recently where we were looking
Speaker 1: at how chemical companies do this too. I feel like
Speaker 1: it's become really common, this whole corporate surveillance thing. Right
Speaker 1: for me, I've looked at it so often that on
Speaker 1: this most recent story, it was the other reporter that
Speaker 1: I was working with and I were kind of like, ah,
Speaker 1: but is this even new, because this they all do
Speaker 1: this and like whatever, and then we caught ourselves and
Speaker 1: we're like, no, no, it's still actually really genuinely messed
Speaker 1: up that companies do this. I think that really most
Speaker 1: people don't realize that they do it. In this particular case,
Speaker 1: we found a database that this company was keeping on
Speaker 1: people they considered to be their enemies, which included get
Speaker 1: on the researchers, journalists, activists, a whole bunch of different people,
Speaker 1: and they had really scary details like details of someone's
Speaker 1: divorce and details of an illness and someone's family and
Speaker 1: things like that that are really really genuinely creepy. And
Speaker 1: you know, if if companies have the budget to be
Speaker 1: hiring Israeli surveillance.
Speaker 2: Organization, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Being the sort of information they can get to and
Speaker 1: the way that that can be weaponized is really really scary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it really is, right, And so for you know,
Speaker 2: for staff at nonprofit organizations, so we're doing the work
Speaker 2: to carry out their public interest missions. For an organization
Speaker 2: like us, who we're working with scientists who are doing
Speaker 2: the the natural and social science work to compare the
Speaker 2: science and the scientific understanding inside the corporations with what
Speaker 2: was what's happening with your governmental panel on climate change
Speaker 2: at the same time. For example, for people well doing
Speaker 2: this work for the benefit of society to be attacked,
Speaker 2: to have their motivations misrepresented, to be falsely accused of conspiring,
Speaker 2: could have a chilling effect on work that really urgently
Speaker 2: needs to be done in a world where we're dealing
Speaker 2: with the impacts of a climate crisis every day. So
Speaker 2: it is incredibly significant. And yeah, although pictures of this
Speaker 2: puzzle have been out there for some time, I mean
Speaker 2: Exon Mobile once had a website that was called Understanding
Speaker 2: the Exon New Controversy that featured some of the stolen materials.
Speaker 2: To for the first time have public court evidence that
Speaker 2: link Sexon Mobile and one of it then lobbying firms
Speaker 2: to the the hacking conspiracy is significant. I should say
Speaker 2: that both Exxon Mobile and DCI Group deny any involvement
Speaker 2: in the hacking scheme and have maintained that they had
Speaker 2: nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: That's very interesting, yess or a universe in which in
Speaker 1: one of these cases, either in the US or maybe
Speaker 1: outside the US, that that could be compelled.
Speaker 2: I think it's definitely worth calling for it. I think
Speaker 2: especially because we've understood again from the filings and the
Speaker 2: related investigative journalism, is that the DC based lobbying group
Speaker 2: and I quote acted on behalf of one of the
Speaker 2: world's largest oil and gas corporations centered in Irving, Texas
Speaker 2: in relation to ongoing climate change litigation being brought against it.
Speaker 2: So at the time that this hacking operation began, Exon
Speaker 2: Mobil was headquartered in Irving, Texas. They since their headquarters
Speaker 2: to Houston. And this is just this is so significant
Speaker 2: because this is ten years ago before there was as
Speaker 2: investigations by state attorneys general were just getting started, right,
Speaker 2: And so if that is indeed motivation behind the hacking scheme,
Speaker 2: then what we see our climate accountability litigation claims that
Speaker 2: are now advancing that really focus on the deception and
Speaker 2: disinformation as the center of consumer protection and alleged fraud complaints.
Speaker 6: And then you know Exon Mobile actually using yeah, information
Speaker 6: that was obtained through a hacking operation and in the
Speaker 6: public through a hacking operation to perpetuate and expand that
Speaker 6: disinformation right by misrepresenting what the accountability work is about.
Speaker 6: So it is connected to very much the efforts to
Speaker 6: hold the fossil fuel corporations accountable through litigation and the election.
Speaker 1: It's such a weird and creepy story and look like
Speaker 1: irrespective of your thoughts on climate and oil companies, the
Speaker 1: idea that it's just been normalized for corporations to do
Speaker 1: intensive surveillance on citizens is pretty scary and gross, and
Speaker 1: I don't think most people think it's good.
Speaker 2: I don't think so either. That's another thing that's interesting
Speaker 2: about this, right, is that I mean this hacking operation,
Speaker 2: what was massive? Right. There were one hundred and twenty
Speaker 2: eight targets provided that were related to the work to
Speaker 2: hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate change, but
Speaker 2: there were a whole range of other targets. And it's
Speaker 2: really a criminal hacking operation without any any political or
Speaker 2: scientific dimensions to it. So that's where it was it
Speaker 2: was especially interesting.
Speaker 7: One might say it's cynical that the defense mad level
Speaker 7: by Corlet's attorneys, where they were attempting to prevent the extradition,
Speaker 7: claimed that he was actually being persecuted for his political views.
Speaker 2: On climate change. For how political views that were similar
Speaker 2: to at some mobile.
Speaker 1: So interesting, you're part of their legal argument too, right,
Speaker 1: is that like?
Speaker 2: Right? Exactly exactly, he's like.
Speaker 1: That political belief in there for a First Amendment issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Wow. You know here's a guy who really, if
Speaker 2: the allegations are true, he was in it for the money.
Speaker 2: He's a hacker for hire or a middle man.
Speaker 1: Right, It's not like he had some long history as
Speaker 1: a political pundit.
Speaker 2: The DC based lobbying group according to the filings paid
Speaker 2: for what's firm, he's a total of sixteen million dollars
Speaker 2: between twenty thirteen and twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Wow, So that's.
Speaker 2: Said, that's a lucrative operation.
Speaker 1: In the past decade or so, litigation has been this
Speaker 1: point of optimism for people that there's this tool that
Speaker 1: we can use as dubbernment's continue to fail to be
Speaker 1: aggressive or not for these policies to reduce emissions. Do
Speaker 1: you still feel like that's the key? But do you
Speaker 1: think that despite all these efforts to try to a
Speaker 1: stop these particular cases in the US, that litigation still
Speaker 1: provides hope will path forward?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely. The US cases are proceeding towards consideration on.
Speaker 8: Their merit, and that should be an opportunity for the
Speaker 8: state claims that are around consumer protection and public nuisance
Speaker 8: for example, you know, have the opportunity to.
Speaker 2: Be heard in court. So that the evidence that we've
Speaker 2: compiled here in this report, documentation and primary sources that
Speaker 2: have been made public through arrange of investigations by Congress
Speaker 2: by investigative journalism, this evidence could be really important in
Speaker 2: informing cases that are happening in other jurisdictions and on
Speaker 2: other types of claims to hold the fossil fuel corporations
Speaker 2: accountable for their role in climate change. So absolutely that
Speaker 2: there are numerous pass for fossil fuel accountability that are
Speaker 2: proceeding around the world, and there really should be an
Speaker 2: opportunity for communities to cause access to justice for the
Speaker 2: harm that we're all facing.
Speaker 1: That is it for this week. Make sure you're subscribed
Speaker 1: so you don't miss our new season. You can access
Speaker 1: a transcript of this episode and read all sorts of
Speaker 1: stories on our website at Drill dot Media. You can
Speaker 1: also sign up for our Patreon there. Free members will
Speaker 1: get our weekly newsletter and if you want to support
Speaker 1: our work by becoming a paid subscriber, you'll get access
Speaker 1: to bonuses like sneak peaks of upcoming episodes, additional interviews
Speaker 1: and more. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production. This
Speaker 1: episode was produced by Peter duff Our. Fact checker is
Speaker 1: Shilpa Gindia. Artwork by Matt Fleming. James Wheaton of The
Speaker 1: First Amendment Project is our First Amendment lawyer. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and we'll see you next time.