By

It’s been a busy week for Exxon Mobil: The company is under scrutiny in Washington and in New York.

In D.C., a congressional hearing on Wednesday focused on the fact that the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat of climate change for a long time , while quietly financing groups that spread climate denial and lobbying to forestall legislative action. The chairman of the House oversight subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties opened the hearing with a blast, saying, “Oil companies like Exxon knew the scientific reality of climate change 40 years ago but waged a war of deception that cost us precious time in the fight to save our planet.”

At the same time, in New York City the company is facing off with the state attorney general’s office in a shareholder fraud lawsuit four years in the making that alleges Exxon told investors it was fully accounting for the risks of climate regulation to its business while in practice it was seriously underestimating that risk. The trial is not about climate change denial directly, but instead hinges on New York’s Martin Act, which gives the state broad powers to protect shareho lders from corporate fraud.

The trial started Tuesday and is expected to last three weeks.

In 2015 The New York Times broke the news that the New York Attorney General had launched a fraud investigation of Exxon Mobil. Our first article stated the investigation focused on “whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.”

On Tuesday in Manhattan, I was in the courtroom when the case finally came to trial in New York State Supreme Court with opening statements before the presiding judge, Barry Ostrager. Protesters outside chanted “Exxon Knew!” earlier in the day, but their fire was matched by Ted Wells Jr., a lawyer for the company, who suggested that discussion at a 2016 meeting among climate activists about portraying Exxon as “a corrupt institution” was part of a conspiracy to take down the company with a “vilification agenda” that he compared to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.