Oil companies and climate change: who should pay?

Environmentalists say a groundbreaking investigation in New York involving energy giant ExxonMobil could have implications for Canadian oil producers.

The state's attorney general is looking into allegations the company lied to the public and investors about the risks of climate change.

"This is the thin edge of the wedge," says Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign co-ordinator forGreenpeace.

"Similar to tobacco it took time for these court cases to kick in, but once they did, the damages were in the billions."

Who should pay?

The investigation stems from media reports claiming Exxonsawthe dangers offossil fuels in its own researchas far back as the1970s, but fundedgroups that publiclychallengedclimate change in the decades that followed.

ExxonMobilsays the allegations are unfounded.Inblogposts,vice-president of public affairsKen Cohen tackles a reportin the Los Angeles Times, saying it's based on "selective, out-of-context use of publiclyavailable documents."

Cohen says ExxonMobil has been open about its research on climate change for decades. But that's different from being certain about the effects: "We have nothing to hide."

The truthof those allegations willunfold in time. But Stewart saidwhat's just as significant is that the battle over climate change appears to be moving into courtrooms.

Last year,Greenpeaceand the World Wildlife Fund sentletters to dozens of Canadian and international oil companies to get them on the record about their public communication and lobbying efforts around climate change.

Stewart says they're hoping to lay the groundwork for court cases to come, in the event oilproducers havebeen working to slow efforts to fight global warming.

Tobacco example

That is a page taken directly from litigation thatsaw tobacco manufacturers pay billions in the United States for deliberately misleading consumers about the health impacts of smoking.

At the time, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers dismissed the letters as a stunt, pointing to the industry's efforts to to advocate for carbon policy.Greenpeace, they say,just wants to shut down the industry.

West Coast Environmental Law staff counsel Andrew Gagesaidhe knows of no evidence Canadian companies have been sitting on research.

Butthe possibility of litigation opens up a question of financial liability.

Who should pay for damage from hurricanes, storms, ice melts and damage done toinfrastructure as a result of global warming?

"Fossil fuel companies havebeen making billions of dollars of profit, they'veknown that their product was actually causing these kinds of impacts. Is there a conversation about the kind of share they should be paying?" he asks.

"That is a very live question for the Canadian companies, because if they didn't know when they set up the oil sands operations, they should have known very shortly thereafter."

Other environmental lawyers suggest thelist of potential defendants could include the past government of Canadafor withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and muzzling Environment Canada scientists.