3 ms·

I'm just here to play devils advocate, I don't know how I feel about this suite. That said, oil companies have known about the effects of climate change for a

I'm just here to play devils advocate, I don't know how I feel about this suite. That said, oil companies have known about the effects of climate change for a while, have known that their products cause it, and then with that knowledge funded climate change disinformation campaigns to persuade public policy. You can liken it to a drug company knowing about the effects of thermeldahyde on pregnant women, but still pushing it as a cure for morning sickness.

lliamander 9y ago
Yes, but the cities of Oakland and SF use fossil fuels and energy made from fossil fuels, correct? The harm isn't in extracting the oil from the ground, it's in burning it. There are a whole host of people guilty of that, including everyone who puts fuel into their internal combustion powered car and turns the thing on.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  Yes, however the confounding factor is that the large oil companies have spent a lot of money convincing people that these actions are harmless, despite internal data saying otherwise. In a world where these companies kept their mouth shut about climate research, then I don't see how they'd be at fault.
  - BFatts 9y ago
    Over a period of how many years? If it's been, say 2-5 years, is that enough time for us to say "they've known and done nothing about it" effectively? Or are we just whining because we like to bitch?
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      Exxon has known since 1977[1]. [1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
briandear 9y ago
If oil was the only cause of climate change perhaps there would be an argument. But what next? Suing Iceland over volcanic eruptions? Suing lumber companies for cutting down trees? It has become absurd. Climate change is big business. Case in point: financially strapped Oakland wants to get paid. How to do that? It’s just like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition’s shakedown of corporations: “donate” or we’ll call you racist and picket your business. When the solution to climate change is “pay me” then I am skeptical. Perhaps the San Fran area ought to immediately ban all gasoline and diesel sales and close all highways to non electric vehicles. And close the shipping port. And the airport. No, they won’t do that because this isn’t about some immediate threat, this is about getting paid. As long as there is a single gasoline station in the Bay Area, Oakland and friends are doing nothing more that leveraging FUD to get paid.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  It's not about the burning of fossil fuels, its about the misinformation campaign.
nobodyorother 9y ago
Heck, friend, Black Tar Sands Crude is the cure for every ill you've got! Back aches, stomach aches, tooth aches, liver spots, bald spots, acne spots, and even your carpet's pet spots, Black Tar Sands Crude will fix them all! Remember the name kids, Black Tar Sands Crude: that's Black Tar Sands Crude, the only bitumen-based-oil unnecessarily pumped through multiple countries that's fit for your family! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
- BFatts 9y ago
  Did you see the new way of packaging these that doesn't require a pipeline? Interesting stuff, right? Let's fund that instead of the pipeline method and we can all stop bitching about oil spills!
BFatts 9y ago
"A while" being defined as what? 5 years, 10, 15, 20? I don't think that companies this large (and dependent on their product) can change their business plan in whatever your contrived timeframe is. I'm not defending the oil companies, but I defend the cost of change, the time to do it, and the demands still upon them to produce their main product: oil. Can we expect the companies to shift production to something other than oil? In fact, as we became more and more aware of human-influenced climate change, we LEARNED what caused the problem. It's easy to look back on when we first really determined humans and the biggest cause of climate change, and judge them based on what we know NOW. Taking 2017 knowledge and applying it to 1997 by saying "they've had a long time to fix this" is disingenuous armchair quarterbacking at worst.

lliamander 9y ago

Yes, but the cities of Oakland and SF use fossil fuels and energy made from fossil fuels, correct? The harm isn't in extracting the oil from the ground, it's in burning it. There are a whole host of people guilty of that, including everyone who puts fuel into their internal combustion powered car and turns the thing on.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
Yes, however the confounding factor is that the large oil companies have spent a lot of money convincing people that these actions are harmless, despite internal data saying otherwise. In a world where these companies kept their mouth shut about climate research, then I don't see how they'd be at fault.
- BFatts 9y ago
  Over a period of how many years? If it's been, say 2-5 years, is that enough time for us to say "they've known and done nothing about it" effectively? Or are we just whining because we like to bitch?
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    Exxon has known since 1977[1]. [1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

briandear 9y ago

If oil was the only cause of climate change perhaps there would be an argument. But what next? Suing Iceland over volcanic eruptions? Suing lumber companies for cutting down trees? It has become absurd. Climate change is big business. Case in point: financially strapped Oakland wants to get paid. How to do that? It’s just like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition’s shakedown of corporations: “donate” or we’ll call you racist and picket your business. When the solution to climate change is “pay me” then I am skeptical. Perhaps the San Fran area ought to immediately ban all gasoline and diesel sales and close all highways to non electric vehicles. And close the shipping port. And the airport. No, they won’t do that because this isn’t about some immediate threat, this is about getting paid. As long as there is a single gasoline station in the Bay Area, Oakland and friends are doing nothing more that leveraging FUD to get paid.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
It's not about the burning of fossil fuels, its about the misinformation campaign.

nobodyorother 9y ago

Heck, friend, Black Tar Sands Crude is the cure for every ill you've got! Back aches, stomach aches, tooth aches, liver spots, bald spots, acne spots, and even your carpet's pet spots, Black Tar Sands Crude will fix them all! Remember the name kids, Black Tar Sands Crude: that's Black Tar Sands Crude, the only bitumen-based-oil unnecessarily pumped through multiple countries that's fit for your family! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

BFatts 9y ago
Did you see the new way of packaging these that doesn't require a pipeline? Interesting stuff, right? Let's fund that instead of the pipeline method and we can all stop bitching about oil spills!

BFatts 9y ago

"A while" being defined as what? 5 years, 10, 15, 20? I don't think that companies this large (and dependent on their product) can change their business plan in whatever your contrived timeframe is. I'm not defending the oil companies, but I defend the cost of change, the time to do it, and the demands still upon them to produce their main product: oil. Can we expect the companies to shift production to something other than oil? In fact, as we became more and more aware of human-influenced climate change, we LEARNED what caused the problem. It's easy to look back on when we first really determined humans and the biggest cause of climate change, and judge them based on what we know NOW. Taking 2017 knowledge and applying it to 1997 by saying "they've had a long time to fix this" is disingenuous armchair quarterbacking at worst.