3 ms·

> And had they done this 40 years ago, they should have been sued by their shareholders. I don't buy this idea one bit - but let's say I did agree. That would

by cryptoz 11y ago

> And had they done this 40 years ago, they should have been sued by their shareholders. I don't buy this idea one bit - but let's say I did agree. That would be the most damning evidence ever presented that capitalism is a direct path to extinction for society: your idea that the only legal path forward is to heat up the Earth as much as possible and drive the cause of a mass-extinction event. No thanks, let's not be capitalists then. In reality I disagree - they would not have been sued by their shareholders, nor should they have been. Isn't it becoming clear that their business was built on lies? I believe their shareholders should sue them right now, for telling those lies. > Oil is still going strong Oh really? It doesn't look that way to me.

michaelcampbell 11y ago
> > Oil is still going strong > Oh really? It doesn't look that way to me. What are you looking at that indicates otherwise?
- cryptoz 11y ago
  I'm looking at climate change as a global event that indicates otherwise. Saying that oil is going strong is like saying that the gang running through the streets breaking windows is making the window business strong. Global climate change is costing the world tens of trillions of dollars, and the cause of this huge burden is our use of oil. Oil is not going strong, it is causing global-scale mass extinctions and will cost first-world economies trillions and trillions of dollars in the coming decades.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    You're confusing two different concepts. "Going strong" means it's quite lucrative to sell oil. Which it is. > Global climate change is costing the world tens of trillions of dollars It has certainly been speculated that if the ocean rises due to climate change, that will be very expensive, but I'm not aware of any current expenses of twenty trillion dollars or more that can be directly and convincingly linked to climate change. Since you seem very certain about it, though, perhaps you can provide some links?

by cryptoz 11y ago

michaelcampbell 11y ago

> > Oil is still going strong > Oh really? It doesn't look that way to me. What are you looking at that indicates otherwise?

cryptoz 11y ago
I'm looking at climate change as a global event that indicates otherwise. Saying that oil is going strong is like saying that the gang running through the streets breaking windows is making the window business strong. Global climate change is costing the world tens of trillions of dollars, and the cause of this huge burden is our use of oil. Oil is not going strong, it is causing global-scale mass extinctions and will cost first-world economies trillions and trillions of dollars in the coming decades.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  You're confusing two different concepts. "Going strong" means it's quite lucrative to sell oil. Which it is. > Global climate change is costing the world tens of trillions of dollars It has certainly been speculated that if the ocean rises due to climate change, that will be very expensive, but I'm not aware of any current expenses of twenty trillion dollars or more that can be directly and convincingly linked to climate change. Since you seem very certain about it, though, perhaps you can provide some links?