Big Oil Is Suing Countries to Block Climate Action | Hacker News Reader

Big Oil Is Suing Countries to Block Climate Action

levernews.com

192 pointslando231943 comments

ISDS has already been used in this fashion by cigarette companies suing over advertising rules in Australia [1]. The tobacco firm lost and had to pay costs.

As far as I've read, these things are specified in trade treaties, and are intended to pull disagreements out of local courts. Otherwise, everyone will end up in US courts, and everyone other than the US doesn't want that.

The rules are typically "equivalent treatment". If you put in a new law, it must apply to both foreign and domestic firms. None of the "doesn't apply to companies with theme parks" carve outs.

It looks like the Energy Charter Treaty states that states can't seize assets without compensation. This is important because.... [2] [3] [4]

Non-signatories have a bad habit of seizing and nationalizing oil companies.

Increasing royalty rates to make extraction uneconomic? Maybe? Setting a carbon tax on all CO2 extracted and/or consumed in country? Maybe?

France, has some oil companies of their own, they want to be part of the treaty. If they really wanted to just prevent extraction, they could leave the treaty. However, I would expect TotalEnergies to run into problems?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40552304

[2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-may-17-fi-oxy17...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-oil/update-4-venez...

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/05/02/b...

> Otherwise, everyone will end up in US courts, and everyone other than the US doesn't want that.

Why not ? When the capital city is Washington and US president tells you what to do, why not play ball ?

Because the US is captured by those with capitol and the system works to shit on everyone else thanks to the money lobbying efforts. As it turns out, most people don't actually like oligopolies

For those asking for more specifics - see the report cited in the second link (https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/investor-state-disp...), Table 17 (near the end). It has a list of seven cases filed relating to climate policy. None involve any companies whose names I recognize, but for all I know they are big in their host countries.

I suspect we would start hearing about it if Exxon/Shell/BP/Chevron were doing it.

Maybe they're pushing/funding these little guys to test the climate on this kind of court action. (Ha!)

Good for them, if so. I like cheap electricity in my house and going places in my vehicle for $perGallon != $fkme

Yeah! Fuck the Earth!! Me Me Me!!!

Did you stop using vehicles and electricity, or are you just posturing?

You are gratuitously cheerleading for oil companies meddling in state efforts to slow down climate change.

Could you remind me why it's inconsistent for me to criticize that while still using vehicles and electricity?

Look at tables 13 and 14.

As I read it, only Table 17 is specifically focused on climate policy cases. There are lots of other things investors can sue about.

Thanks.

This article is extremely light on details and the only actual reference is a link to a footnote in a referenced article that doesn't actually contain any information supporting the article's claim.

Let's get a better source, please.

Despite the title, I didn’t see any examples of Big Oil suing countries to block climate action in the article. Did I miss it? Early in the article it talks about Vermillion, but they aren’t Big Oil.

Vermillion is absolutely "Big Oil." They are an oil and gas company that make several billion a year. If you don't consider that "big" I don't know what is.

Big Oil is ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Aramco, Total, Chevron—companies of that magnitude.

Regardless, Vermillion is the only oil company that sued anyone and did it a few years ago. Where’s the evidence of Big Oil currently suing?

My impression is this is a technique of the 2nd tier energy companies (e.g. https://www.isds.bilaterals.org/vattenfall-vs-germany-i-coal...).

Companies like BP, Total, etc operate more like nation-states and have other tools available.

I'd still call them "Big Energy" however.

which makes sense. second tier companies are less likely to survive, so they have to fight harder

Vermillion: $5B

Exxon: $440B

In the PDF of the report linked (https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-01/investor%E2%80%93s...) there's a table of cases they're citing as examples. Two of them are "Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador" (part I and II). Chevron is undoubtedly a Big Oil company.

ISDS courts are some of the worst ideas I've seen. Private legal systems that sit above any national government and routinely favor for profit corporations over humanitarian interests such as:

* labor rights, workplace safety

* public health

* environmental concerns, including but definitely not limited to the climate crisis

Phillip Morris has used ISDS courts to prevent governments from taking measures to reduce tobacco usage, for example.

Similarly, see the way that Chevron crippled electric car development by at least a decade, and used gagging orders to hide the fact that they'd done so, via ICC arbitration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV#Chevron_Patent_...

Chevron also bribed a pair of judges in Ecuador and New York to frame and jail an environmental lawyer who sued them for poisoning Ecuador with dumped oil.

https://nacla.org/news/2021/08/25/ecuador-chevron-donziger

> Phillip Morris has used ISDS courts to prevent governments from taking measures to reduce tobacco usage, for example.

I believe the correct characterization is "attempted to use", not used--I don't think the company ever got a successful ruling.

The CPTPP has an ISDS process as part of the treaty. I was interested to see in the NZ case at lest that "New Zealand can rule out cases relating to tobacco control measures." and "interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi subject to the dispute settlement mechanisms under CPTPP."

Small Oil would never do this, we need to go back to grass roots pollution.

So I am not familiar with international law, but a hypothetical --

Suppose some country got sued by an oil company and lost, and the president or prime minister of that country held a press conference, announced that they would not pay the judgment, and instead invited the oil company to go fuck themselves. Using those words, on national TV.

What might plausibly happen next?

Generally speaking governments, unless bound by treaty (and not even then really) are completely free to ignore the results of (most) lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

could be grounds for proposing relevant economic sanctions.

the wisdom of taking this risk comes down to how dependent the sued nation is on broader economic cooperation with the guilty nation.

Probably wouldn’t have much of a chance at buying oil.

If the big oil company is from the US (and on a lesser measure an ally), it is likely the US would threaten that other country with diplomatic and economical sanctions.

These ISDS entities only have teeth because of international trade agreements. Presumably the country that refused to pay the settlement would be in violation of the trade agreement, and would see immediate sanctions/tariffs.

A country would only see sanctions if it harmed a foreign powerful country. When multinational companies are suing multiple countries, there's no incentive for the countries to sanction each other.

ISDS provides barely-plausible deniability for giveaways from governments to billionaires.

If the oil company is one of the big players, it uses its political sway with OPEC and other major oil producers to ensure that the country doesn't get oil until they beg.

Here’s one thing that could happen next: suits filed to seize the nation’s assets abroad, while the business and others like it leave the nation in question to its own devices. The consequences for the nation are unfortunate as the economy degrades.

Case study: Venezuela. It didn’t go before this specific kind of court that I know of but they totally seized foreign oil companies’ assets. Their tankers, and tankers with their oil aboard, are subject to being impounded in some jurisdictions, to compensate those whose property was taken.

Ignoring the matter of how it's worded, that sounds like a good way to start a trade war. I'd expect that oil company's "home" country to impose retalliatory tarrifs on products from the country that isn't paying the judgement. (Of course realpolitik considerations would be significant, but I think there's still a decent international consensus that thinks the rule of law is worth defending, even if it's weaker than it was)

Regulatory risk is part of any investment decision. Investors have to consider that before investing in "Big Oil". Doesn't stop them from filing lawsuits though.

Oil companies aren't going to go "quietly into that good night" in any case. Too many lawyers, too much money, too much corruption.

Where is the evidence of suits by Big Oil? I didn’t see any evidence in the article.

Why they're not talking about "environmentalists" in Germany which were against nuclear energy but completely okay with dirty coal plants? Making the country dependent on russian gas, with no alternatives, and thus allowing monopolist to make more money for their bloody things.

This submission slid off the front page shockingly fast. "Investigation report on the OVH data centre fire in Strasbourg on 2021-03-10" has 54 points, submitted 6 hours ago, and is ranked 15th. This one has 154 points, submitted 1 hour ago, and is 39th.

Might have been down weighted...

ISDS are a tool for nations to reduce regulatory risk of foreign companies in their country and so enable additional investments.

I am not sure if restricting the ability of nations to do that would be a net positive.

I sure hope this doesn't affect big oil companies position on ESG indexes!

Can Australia and California countersue for the bushfire/wildfire damages?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com