By Dana Drugmand

Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren called for companies that deliberately mislead federal regulators to be prosecuted under a new corporate perjury law, according to a plan she released Tuesday, using Exxon as an example. 

Warren’s “Fighting Corporate Perjury” plan would allow corporate officers to be held criminally liable for providing false or misleading information, including by using industry-funded studies, to regulatory agencies. The plan also would prohibit the use of non-peer-reviewed studies that are found to have a conflict of interest in federal rulemaking and related court challenges. She called for the creation of a new Office of the Public Advocate, which would help the public participate in regulatory and legal proceedings. 

Warren’s latest plan, part of her broader campaign pledge to end corruption, calls out fossil fuel companies for their “decades-long campaign to cover up these [climate] facts and deceive government regulators and the American people.” It notes Exxon’s record of funding climate denial and promoting and publishing discredited science, including in an official regulatory comment to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 claiming that climate change effects on public welfare were “almost non-existent.” Warren’s plan would crack down on this kind of misinformation in a bold new way, by subjecting corporations to liability for lying to regulators. Potential penalties could include up to a quarter of a million dollars in fines or even jail time.  

“My plan to End Washington Corruption prevents companies like Exxon from using industry-funded fake research to mislead federal regulators,” Warren wrote. “And if bad actors like Exxon break the rules and deliberately lie to government agencies, my plan will treat them the same way the law treats someone who lies in court—by subjecting them to potential prosecution for perjury.” 

Misleading regulatory agencies currently carries no legal consequences, Warren said. “It is illegal to lie to Congress. It is illegal to lie to a court. It’s even illegal to lie to your shareholders,” she wrote. “But corporate interests are regularly and knowingly peddling false claims in order to stop regulatory agencies from acting in the public interest.”

Exxon is currently embroiled in multiple lawsuits alleging the company misled its shareholders on how it discloses climate risks and deals with potential regulations on carbon-based fuels. New York sued Exxon for alleged climate fraud and is awaiting a verdict from New York Supreme Court Judge Barry Ostrager.

A congressional subcommittee recently held a held a hearing on the oil industry’s suppression of climate science. During that hearing, the former Department of Justice prosecutor in the federal tobacco litigation, Sharon Eubanks, said that the oil industry’s deception campaign that targeted the public and Congress could constitute “actionable fraud,” while the lone GOP witness claimed during her testimony that the impacts of climate change were “mild and manageable.” Another witness, Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes, called that claim “demonstrably untrue.” 

Far from being “mild and manageable,” climate impacts like deadly heat waves, more destructive wildfires, and worsening storms and flooding “are putting lives at risk,” Warren wrote. “Exxon knew about the risks of climate change decades ago. But their response to discovering the truth was to do everything possible to hide it from the world for as long as possible.” 

Warren is now vowing to put an end to that kind of deception with her plan to “hold bad actors accountable.” 

“The fossil fuel industry has been – and continues to be – a bad actor in global warming politics,” said Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard research associate who studies fossil fuel industry misinformation. “This policy pledge is a powerful step towards neutralizing Big Oil’s ability to target and undermine science-based decision-making.

“The timing of this announcement is poetic in that it comes as the Trump administration, at the long-time behest of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, is reportedly moving to ban the best scientific information from informing public health policy,” Supran said, referring to an attempt by the EPA to limit the use of science in public health regulations. 

Warren’s announcement, Supran said, is “precisely the kind of approach to the climate crisis that we need more of from politicians: To see the climate crisis not as a niche ‘environmental’ issue, but as an issue of corporate capture and corruption of American politics that is jeopardizing the public’s chances of a just and stable future.” 

By Dana Drugmand

Sen. Kamala Harris became the latest Democratic presidential candidate to include holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate change among her policies to tackle the issue if she is elected. 

During a televised town hall event Wednesday night, Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general of California, said she would work to hold the industry liable for the damage it has caused to the climate.

“It’s not about debating the science. It’s about taking on powerful interests,” Harris said. “Let’s take them to court.” 

Harris released the details of her climate plan earlier Wednesday. The plan calls for a $10 trillion investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045. One of the plan’s five pillars is holding polluters accountable. According to the plan, “Kamala’s Administration will hold accountable those responsible for environmental degradation, the misinformation campaign against climate science, and creating harm to the health and wellbeing of current and future generations.” 

While the plan does not explicitly mention prosecuting fossil fuel companies or pursuing liability litigation, Harris clarified during the town hall that she would support suing the companies that waged a tobacco-style disinformation campaign to undermine climate science. 

“This is what we did to the tobacco companies. We sued them, we took them to court,” Harris said in response to an audience question from consultant David Leon Zink. In drawing the connection between the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the health impacts of smoking and the fossil fuel industry’s effort to undermine climate science, Zink mentioned that a family member died from smoking-related illness and he also lost his home to the Camp Fire that ravaged the town of Paradise, Calif. last year. 

Harris, after briefly reflecting on the Camp Fire tragedy that claimed 85 lives, brought the discussion back to her commitment to pursuing corporate accountability.  

“They have to be held accountable. These are bad behaviors. They are causing harm and death in communities,” she said. 

CNN’s Erin Burnett followed up with a pointed question. “So Sen. Harris would you sue them, would you sue ExxonMobil?” 

 “Yes!” Harris responded. “I have sued ExxonMobil.” 

Harris alluded to bringing litigation against big oil companies like Chevron and BP as California AG. These cases were tied to environmental violations rather than climate impacts, but Harris has more recently signaled her support for climate liability investigations and lawsuits. In 2016, as California attorney general she initially indicated that she would pursue an investigation into ExxonMobil’s alleged climate fraud, following her counterparts in Massachusetts and New York. She did not follow through on that promise as she ran for her Senate seat. As a senator, she has co-signed an amicus brief in support of Oakland and San Francisco suing fossil fuel companies to pay for climate damages.

Harris is not alone in supporting taking legal action against the fossil fuel industry. Bernie Sanders said he would hold it accountable in court, including pursuing potential criminal liability, in his climate plan. 

During the town hall discussion on Wednesday, Julian Castron, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary and former vice president Joe Biden both referenced polluter accountability in response to audience questions. 

“We wouldn’t be afraid of taking these folks to court,” Castro said.   

In a question to Biden, a 27 year-old doctoral candidate at Northwestern University, Isaac Larkin, said fossil fuel corporations have “waged a decades long campaign of lying to the public about the science that has brought us to a crisis that threatens the entire human race. 

“How can we trust you to hold these corporations and executives accountable for their crimes against humanity?”  

Biden said he would support holding the industry accountable, “just like we did the tobacco industry who lied to the public, just like we did the opioid industry.” He said he would do that not through litigation but by “changing the law.” 

By Karen Savage

Billionaire Tom Steyer, who has long pushed for climate change to be a major issue for presidential candidates, announced he is entering the race for the Democratic nomination. He promised to campaign around what he sees as the biggest obstacle to climate action: excessive corporate power, particularly the fossil fuel industry.

“You know you look at climate change—that is people who are saying we’d rather make money than save the world. That is an amazing statement, and it’s happening today and there are politicians supporting that,” Steyer said in a video released to announce his candidacy on Tuesday. In the video, he focuses on injustices caused by corporations, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that gave corporations the same rights as people.

Steyer is the latest to enter the crowded Democratic race, which currently has 25 contenders, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Cory Booker, among others. While many of those candidates have issued plans to combat climate change, only Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has made it the focus of his campaign, and he is running far back in the polls.

But the issue is resonating with voters. With wildfires, increased precipitation events, severe flooding and rising sea levels, recent polls show voters are increasingly concerned about climate change. The Democratic National Committee has opposed staging a debate solely to discuss climate change debate and the issue received scant attention during the first two Democratic debates last month.

Steyer aims to change that by taking on the power behind the problem.

“Almost every single major intractable problem, at the back of it you see a big money interest for whom stopping progress, stopping justice, is really important to their bottom line,” Steyer said. “We’ve got to take the corporate control out of our politics.”

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, is the founder of NextGen America, a nonprofit group that combats climate change, promotes social justice and increases citizen participation by registering young voters and grassroots organizing. 

He has pledged to use “at least $100 million” of his own money to fund his presidential bid.

During the 2016 election cycle, Steyer spent $65 million in support of Democratic candidates and environmental causes and has recently advocated for the impeachment of President Trump. 

With a net worth of $1.6 billion, Steyer has admitted to profiting off fossil fuel investments in the past. He said he has since divested and also pledged to give away half his net worth to charitable causes.

“Tom Steyer has done a great deal of good through his leadership of, and contributions to groups fighting climate change,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental and climate change law at Columbia University and chair of the faculty at Columbia’s Earth Institute. 

But Gerrard questioned whether a presidential run is the best use of Steyer’s time and ample resources.

“Throwing himself into a large ring of Democratic candidates, several of whom are strong advocates of climate action, strikes me as a distraction and a waste of money that could accomplish more if used in other ways,” Gerrard said.

Others say regardless of the outcome, his candidacy will bring greater attention to the urgency of climate change.

“Tom Steyer’s entry into the presidential race is likely to lead to more discussion of climate change in the presidential election,” said climate scientist and Penn State professor Michael Mann.  “It will add to the chorus of voices arguing for the primacy of this issue in the 2020 presidential race—that can’t be a bad thing.”

Single-issue candidates are important components of presidential politics because they can draw the public’s attention to their issue, said Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, who is now a visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University.

“He can use his wealth to run commercials and highlight the climate issue in ways that Jay Inslee couldn’t,” said Brulle, adding that could help the public to focus on climate change.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said Steyer has been a climate leader for years.

“Democratic candidates’ bold proposals to tackle the crisis continue to illustrate the divide between a field of candidates listening to the people versus Trump, who’s endangering them,” Brune said via Twitter, adding that he’s glad to see another “climate champ” enter the race.

Steyer said he doesn’t see climate change as a stand-alone issue.

“Everything is connected—climate change impacts low-income citizens first, and has already displaced thousands and created climate refugees,” Steyer said on Twitter on Monday. 

“Climate justice is economic justice is migrant justice.”