Intimidation Tactics Exposed in Oregon Climate Case vs. Fossil Fuel Industry

In 2021, a record-breaking heat dome enveloped Oregon, tragically claiming the lives of 72 people. In response, Multnomah County, which includes Portland, filed a lawsuit for over $51 billion against major fossil fuel entities-one of the largest claims for a climate case to date. The case names ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, McKinsey & Co., and others, including the recently added NW Natural, a gas utility, alleging that their contributions to climate change-and their disinformation campaigns surrounding it-intensified the conditions that led to this deadly heat wave. Now, the case faces resistance, with apparent intimidation tactics aimed at discouraging academics and regulators from getting involved in the case.

Records Requests Targeting Regulators and Climate Experts

E&E reported that the conservative research firm Argus Insight, known for connections with organizations aligned with fossil fuel interests, recently made multiple records requests seeking private communications involving officials, attorneys, and climate experts linked to the case. Though Argus has no direct stake in the lawsuit, its pursuit of private information on individuals working to inform the litigation is perceived as an attempt to discredit or intimidate those involved.

Argus has industry ties, with clients connected to fossil fuel interests, and its records requests mirror historical strategies used by other industries, such as tobacco, to discredit those informing efforts to hold them accountable. This tactic of undermining credibility and scientific integrity has been used to cast doubt and complicate cases against powerful industries.

A Legacy of Intimidation Against Climate Advocates

The use of intimidation tactics follows a long-standing playbook aimed at suppressing critics and sidestepping accountability. This pattern echoes actions like the 'Dark Basin' cyberattack, a large-scale hacking operation that targeted public interest organizations involved in the #ExxonKnew campaign, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Although we don't know for certain who was behind the operation, we do know that ExxonMobil relied on illegally hacked information in fighting climate accountability lawsuits. The sentencing of Aviram Azari, a 'hacker for hire' involved in this scheme, shed light on the extremes to which some interests will go to maintain control over the climate narrative and obscure their role in the crisis.

Another example of these tactics emerged in 2016 when UCS was issued a subpoena by then-Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Lamar Smith, demanding our communications with state attorneys general and other nonprofits related to climate change. UCS and several other advocacy groups, as well as state attorneys general from New York and Massachusetts, refused to comply, citing the subpoena as an intimidation tactic aimed at stifling free speech and advocacy on climate issues. By targeting organizations working to expose corporate disinformation and hold fossil fuel companies accountable, this move exemplified the pressure placed on groups that seek to address climate impacts through legal and public advocacy.

The Fossil Fuel Industry Fears Climate Accountability

Argus' efforts appear to stretch beyond transparency, aiming to discourage climate litigation by targeting its supporters. This could be a sign of the industry's mounting concerns over lawsuits like Multnomah County's, which looks to set a powerful precedent for corporate responsibility in climate-related disasters. This case is just one of dozens in the U.S. and nearly 100 globally that seek compensation from fossil fuel companies for disinformation and/or climate impacts. By holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for their role in worsening climate impacts, this case seeks to shift the burden of climate adaptation and recovery from taxpayers to those most responsible for the crisis.

The fossil fuel industry's use of intimidation tactics, like those employed by Argus Insight, reveals a calculated effort to undermine voices advocating for climate accountability. These actions seek to stifle vital scientific research and legal claims through harassment and disinformation, compromising the integrity of the accountability process.

When experts, advocates, and public officials face intimidation, it may discourage them from speaking out while casting doubt on the motives behind of climate accountability efforts. Exposing and countering these tactics is essential to maintaining a transparent, science-based approach in the fight against corporate influence. Staying informed about these issues and accessing reliable resources can empower individuals and communities to recognize these tactics, understand their impact, and protect themselves. By exploring trustworthy sources, learning more about how science supports accountability, and sharing credible information, we strengthen our collective resilience and help safeguard the integrity of climate advocacy efforts.