4 ms·

> 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. Defining

> 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. Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk" by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Legalize drugs? Health risk because of more addicts. Oppose mass surveillance? Health risk because of injuries from crime and terrorist attacks. Favor green energy? Health risk due to poisonous materials used in manufacturing solar panels. Et cetera. Please at least be honest about this. People like the NYAG are unable to get their agenda through democratically, so they're going to sue their way to victory instead.

cryptoz 11y ago
> Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. So far in this thread, I've been called "insane" and "out of my right mind". I really wish HN were more polite, this kind of language is toxic to having a good discussion. Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity. Lack of fresh water is a health risk. There are numerous other health risks associated with a changing climate, and it is certainly not "insane" to think that's true.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity a) "Local climate change" that is "largely caused by human activity" is not what we're talking about here. b) If something causing issues with fresh water access is enough to define it as a "health risk" then every natural or human-caused disaster in the history of the world is a "health risk" and the term is meaningless. c) If we can define any problem worldwide as a "health risk" and on that basis sue anyone who disagrees with our evaluation or recommended policy, that's a recipe to legally shut down any argument.
Goronmon 11y ago
>Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk" by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued because the argument is that they new it was a health risk, and took deliberate steps to hide that information from the shareholders and the public. Just like when car companies get sued for hiding information about safety problems, they are getting sued for hiding the information, not because people get hurt in car accidents.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued because the argument is that they new it was a health risk, Gonna stop you right there, because I was objecting to the whole absurd idea of defining oil as a "health risk." If you want climate change policies, just argue for the policies, don't try to slip them in through the back door by redefining the problem as something else.
  - Goronmon 11y ago
    No need to be so defensive.

cryptoz 11y ago

> Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. So far in this thread, I've been called "insane" and "out of my right mind". I really wish HN were more polite, this kind of language is toxic to having a good discussion. Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity. Lack of fresh water is a health risk. There are numerous other health risks associated with a changing climate, and it is certainly not "insane" to think that's true.

13thLetter 11y ago
> Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity a) "Local climate change" that is "largely caused by human activity" is not what we're talking about here. b) If something causing issues with fresh water access is enough to define it as a "health risk" then every natural or human-caused disaster in the history of the world is a "health risk" and the term is meaningless. c) If we can define any problem worldwide as a "health risk" and on that basis sue anyone who disagrees with our evaluation or recommended policy, that's a recipe to legally shut down any argument.

Goronmon 11y ago

>Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk" by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued because the argument is that they new it was a health risk, and took deliberate steps to hide that information from the shareholders and the public. Just like when car companies get sued for hiding information about safety problems, they are getting sued for hiding the information, not because people get hurt in car accidents.

13thLetter 11y ago
> Exxon isn't being sued because oil is a health risk. Exxon is being sued because the argument is that they new it was a health risk, Gonna stop you right there, because I was objecting to the whole absurd idea of defining oil as a "health risk." If you want climate change policies, just argue for the policies, don't try to slip them in through the back door by redefining the problem as something else.
- Goronmon 11y ago
  No need to be so defensive.