““but they have needed energy for many decades.” At some level, oil executives know a reckoning is coming, so they seek to dilute their responsibility with every gallon of fuel they sell.”
How is this diluting responsibility? Ok so Exxon, BP and Shell knew that their goods increased emissions, which effective atmospheric concentrations and could lead to significant events in the future since 1970. What exactly was the alternative? You honestly think if the public knew they would change to solar? If you think that, you clearly are not aware of the cost nor the effectiveness of solar cells back then.
And for oil? We STILL have zero substitutes for refined petroleum. You think EVs would be huge today? Clearly you do not remember the fact that EVs require batteries, which were horrible in energy density and cost back in the 1970s. So what you just assume that magically along the way we would have figured it all out, even we haven’t today and don’t necessarily even know what we’re looking for to advance the technology? That sounds like some BS.
I understand suing the companies for negligence and fraud, but these suits about major events and technology have very little attributable evidence of fact. Part of this is because its extremely difficult to attribute fluctuations in atmospheric concentration to particular weather events over time, and part of this is because is a wide range of variables that also play a role. Its not just because CO2 is global pollutant or that every industry on the planet contributes, but also that our decisions themselves increase the risk of some of these disasters. How we build cities plays a significant role in flooding in regards to the hydrology of city planning. Does your city contain a significant amount of concrete and not enough permeable soil? If yes, then your chances of flooding increase. Does your city use a considerable amount of water and fail to replace it to the environment in an effective manner? If yes, then your risk of wildfires can increase. Does your city have no building codes for coastal structures in regards to storm surge? If yes then hurricanes will most likely cause significantly more risk to you.
Now we get into what is this claim based on:
“Part of the problem is time. The violent weather patterns we are experiencing now are the result of carbon emissions from decades ago.”
- What is this claim based on? Are you suggesting that when concentrations reach a certain level they are likely to be responsible for major weather events over a particular period of time? How exactly do you determine the amount of past time, when the persistence rate for CO2 is 210 years.
"“a corporation that makes a product causing severe harm when used exactly as intended should shoulder the costs of abating that harm.”
- What is this based on, or more specifically to what degree is this based on. If you get sick from buying a product at Walmart, do you get to sue the company that sold the product to Walmart or just the company you directly purchased the product from?
- Believe it or energy companies pay a lot of money in suits, because typically in the event that a direct accident occurs, such as a pipeline breaks the government will sue the pipeline company or contractor. If the contractor or pipeline company cannot pay the full extent of the fine that then energy company has to fit the remaining bill. However this is not what the CD article is suggesting. The quoted section is suggesting that oil and gas companies find themselves 100% liable for damages caused by selling their product, and they alone pay for the damages.
“Between 2006 and 2016, the percentage of Americans who believed that humans were responsible for global warming went down, even as scientists’ confidence in their warnings increased. Meanwhile, in the last 20 years, ExxonMobil routinely broke U.S. records for corporate earnings.”
- What is this based on, or more specifically how are these two events connected? 20 years ago Exxon Mobil was two different companies, and typically in a merger will make more money, so perhaps that play much larger role than deceiving people. Can you even provide an estimate on how much this company made as a result of the deceiving the public? I honestly don’t even know how you would figure that out.
“The fossil fuel giants possessed the early scientific awareness, the economic might, and the political influence to shift the direction of human affairs and avoid climate chaos.”
- Quick question, how do you know for sure that our history is worse than the alternative? What even was the alternative? Ok so these companies tell the public this information- then what? What happens next? You have zero evidence that things would be any better than they are today, only now you are attempting to sue companies and claim that its their fault and we should have changed things for the better. What does that mean?
I’m not advocating with fossil fuels are even taking their side, but you cant just build BS claims around an entity and call it a case. There is a considerable lack of evidence in these claims, and from a realistic and logical perspective it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to sue companies for anything more than fraud.