4 ms·

I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. Oil is so undeniably important

I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency. No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil". Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them.

cryptoz 11y ago
> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. > Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency. Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. > No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil". Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. > Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them. They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.
- euroclydon 11y ago
  > That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. I know it doesn't seem that way, but they must have perceived a danger of being sued over climate change (not health, by the way) in order to have taken these actions. I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. > Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. Not sure about that. Traditional oil production yields massive net energy gains. There's a lot of net energy from solar, but w/o the convenience of a liquid that can be burnt in day or night, and stored for a while. > Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. Okay > They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. I only read the NYT article. Did you read some other source? The only time "health" is mentioned is in a tobacco comparison.
  - the_gastropod 11y ago
    > I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. I'm curious where you draw the line here. You must acknowledge that the price of gasoline, for example, is subsidized by the public dealing with its side-effects. Asthma, acid rain, acidification of the oceans, global warming, etc. are all side-effects that have costs associated with them. These costs are paid by you and I—not Exxon-Mobil. Why do you think it would be unreasonable, assuming Exxon-Mobil is guilty of spreading misinformation, for them to cover some of these costs?
    - euroclydon 11y ago
      Because, I don't believe our petroleum usage as a society is affected by ExxonMobile, no matter how much propaganda they spew out. It's bigger than that. You don't create a climate change remediation policy by suing one oil company.
munificent 11y ago
> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. Prosecution is part of how the government solves it. Regulating companies is a fundamental lever goverment uses to effect change.
- euroclydon 11y ago
  Does the government have a Strategic Tobacco Reserve? Oil is more important that you're making it out to be. Also, regulation and taxes are different from prosecution.
  - munificent 11y ago
    > Oil is more important that you're making it out to be. I never said it wasn't important. > Also, regulation and taxes are different from prosecution. Prosecution is the enforcement of regulation. Without prosecution, there is no regulation. (Or taxes, for that matter.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  One dead littletimmy is not going to make the world any poorer, in fact it might be better.
username223 11y ago
But that's not what they're being prosecuted for, or even what they did wrong. Schneiderman is going after them for not telling their investors about a known risk to their business, namely the need to address climate change. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I don't know the relevant law. On the other hand, funding climate denial groups to put off the inevitable reckoning so they could make as much money as possible selling fossil fuels was morally repugnant. We're decades farther down the global warming road than we had to be, so the cost in life and dollars to un-fuck the planet is much greater than it had to be. And it won't be Exxon picking up the tab.
strictnein 11y ago
Especially since Exxon is a small player on the global energy scene. The state owned oil companies dwarf it.

cryptoz 11y ago

> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. > Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency. Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. > No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil". Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. > Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them. They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.

euroclydon 11y ago
> That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. I know it doesn't seem that way, but they must have perceived a danger of being sued over climate change (not health, by the way) in order to have taken these actions. I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. > Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. Not sure about that. Traditional oil production yields massive net energy gains. There's a lot of net energy from solar, but w/o the convenience of a liquid that can be burnt in day or night, and stored for a while. > Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. Okay > They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. I only read the NYT article. Did you read some other source? The only time "health" is mentioned is in a tobacco comparison.
- the_gastropod 11y ago
  > I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. I'm curious where you draw the line here. You must acknowledge that the price of gasoline, for example, is subsidized by the public dealing with its side-effects. Asthma, acid rain, acidification of the oceans, global warming, etc. are all side-effects that have costs associated with them. These costs are paid by you and I—not Exxon-Mobil. Why do you think it would be unreasonable, assuming Exxon-Mobil is guilty of spreading misinformation, for them to cover some of these costs?
  - euroclydon 11y ago
    Because, I don't believe our petroleum usage as a society is affected by ExxonMobile, no matter how much propaganda they spew out. It's bigger than that. You don't create a climate change remediation policy by suing one oil company.

munificent 11y ago

> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. Prosecution is part of how the government solves it. Regulating companies is a fundamental lever goverment uses to effect change.

euroclydon 11y ago
Does the government have a Strategic Tobacco Reserve? Oil is more important that you're making it out to be. Also, regulation and taxes are different from prosecution.
- munificent 11y ago
  > Oil is more important that you're making it out to be. I never said it wasn't important. > Also, regulation and taxes are different from prosecution. Prosecution is the enforcement of regulation. Without prosecution, there is no regulation. (Or taxes, for that matter.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

happyscrappy 11y ago
One dead littletimmy is not going to make the world any poorer, in fact it might be better.

username223 11y ago

But that's not what they're being prosecuted for, or even what they did wrong. Schneiderman is going after them for not telling their investors about a known risk to their business, namely the need to address climate change. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I don't know the relevant law. On the other hand, funding climate denial groups to put off the inevitable reckoning so they could make as much money as possible selling fossil fuels was morally repugnant. We're decades farther down the global warming road than we had to be, so the cost in life and dollars to un-fuck the planet is much greater than it had to be. And it won't be Exxon picking up the tab.

strictnein 11y ago

Especially since Exxon is a small player on the global energy scene. The state owned oil companies dwarf it.