Seven cities in California are suing energy companies claiming that their contribution to global warming puts their municipalities at grave risk. That the energy industry giants misrepresented the dangers and in exchange for this malfeasance these cities should be rewarded with a little court-ordered public policy victory and some jackpot justice.
Somone at Exxon-Mobile decided to turn the tables. They are asking why the catastrophic claims made by these same municipalities in their lawsuit do no match the language used to woo bond investors?
In its lawsuit against energy companies, the city of Oakland declared “Global warming has caused and continues to cause accelerated sea level rise in San Francisco Bay and the adjacent ocean with severe, and potentially catastrophic, consequences for Oakland.” The filing predicted by 2050, 100-year floods will be occurring every 2.3 years and by 2100, once a week.
There are a plethora of organizations operating in New Hampshire working the threat of catastrophic, man-made, sea-level rise as a wedge issue to grow government, budgets, inflate local projects, raise taxes, and micro-manage people’s day-to-day lives.
But when Oakland, who claims severe and potentially catastrophic consequences in a lawsuit lays it out for potential bond investors, things take on a whole new tune.
“The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change, or flooding from a major storm, could occur, when they may occur, and, if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”
Is there a 97% consensus on this inability to predict narrative, because enquiring “scientific” minds would like to know if you are guilty of either fraud or fraud?
A potential fraud perpetrated in harmony and on this scale comes with additional legal problems (collusion) for the cities in California, but maybe not just California. The city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, living as it does on the coast and in the cross-hairs of man-made global warming mischief has a triple-A bond rating from Standards and Poors and an Aa1 rating from Moodys.
Is Portsmouth misleading investors, Moody’s, or Standard and Poors or, as is more likely the case, investors can sleep easy knowing that their investment is safe in a beautiful city and it is in fact the voters and taxpayers in New Hampshire who are the more likely victims of fraud?