Supreme court lets Exxon off the hook for the Valdez spill

It’s been nearly two decades since the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska. In the intervening years, the spill has become synonymous with corporate negligence and losed out stewardship. It stands as one of the worst environmental disasters in history.

As we near the special day, don’t feel like you have to bake a cake for Exxon. The U.S. Supreme Court has already beaten you to the punch.

In the original judgment on the case, which came five years after the actual spill, an Anchorage jury awarded the plaintiffs $287 million in actual damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. At the instance, the punitive judgment was equal to one year’s profits for the company. Predictably, Exxon repeatedly appealed the judgment, which was reduced to $4 billion, thereupon increased to $4.5 billion, soon after reduced to $2.5 billion. Last week, the Supreme Court (minus justice Alito, who owns by $100,000 worth of Exxon stock, and recused himself from the case), ruled on

the original judgment. In a 5-3 decision, the Supremes determined that the damages were excessive in light of maritime law and ruled that Exxon owes $507 million. With interest, that would come to roughly $1 billion, but it seems likely that Exxon will appeal the interest.

The $507 million represents approximately $15,000 each for the 34,000 fishermen who have had their livelihoods ruined by Exxon. It additionally represents approximately one week’s profits for the company. For a ruling that is supposed to punish Exxon’s corporate mistakes — errors that the Supremes themselves called “more than negligent, but less than malicious” — that seems like a joke. However, with extremely deep pockets and an obvious willingness to litigate until the end of eternity, I can’t help but wonder whether Exxon is done. Given a little more moment and a consistently tractable Supreme Court, is it hard to imagine a day in which Exxon demands payment for the high-octane shoreline that it so generously donated to Alaska?

[Source] Bruce Watson

planet earth conservation national wildlife federation green solar energy energy conservation environmental issues solar water heater electric cars fuel cells popular science endangered species polar bears recycling endangered species list environment recycling facts price of oil climate map human nature renewable energy carbon dioxide photovoltaic solar power mother earth climate graphs kyoto protocol epa fossil fuels earth science dictionary noise pollution deforestation solar greenhouse gases pollution solar panel peak oil global warming carbon footprint water pollution waste management earth wind energy hybrid vehicles organic food organic solar powered cars tankless water heaters global warming facts free energy going green go green greenhouse effect natural resources recycle cause of global warming geothermal energy hybrid cars oil prices consequences of global warming alternative energy solar cells composting solar cell water heaters solar panels mother earth news thermal energy science news energy star causes of global warming electronic waste climate change earth day wind power al gore earth science bottled water water conservation hybrid car tankless water heater air pollution wildlife department of energy planet genetically modified food nature an inconvenient truth ecology science magazine solar dryer ocean pollution water effects of global warming sustainability compost land pollution green guy green building what is global warming