4 ms·

> 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'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.
  - the_gastropod 11y ago
    That's effectively like saying the murder problem isn't because of ONE murderer. Why bother arresting a murderer? If Exxon-Mobil is guilty of falsifying information, they should be held accountable. Period. Whether other companies are also guilty is of no consequence to Exxon. They should be held responsible as well.

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.
- the_gastropod 11y ago
  That's effectively like saying the murder problem isn't because of ONE murderer. Why bother arresting a murderer? If Exxon-Mobil is guilty of falsifying information, they should be held accountable. Period. Whether other companies are also guilty is of no consequence to Exxon. They should be held responsible as well.