4 ms·
It's not so much that they continued operating. Everybody was still using their products after all and there was no alternative anyway. It's not even that they
by kirrent 6y ago
It's not so much that they continued operating. Everybody was still using their products after all and there was no alternative anyway. It's not even that they passively sat on it. It's that, in the same vein as the tobacco companies, they merchants of doubted us over the following decades, spending considerable amounts of money in questioning climate science and hindering action.
- Roritharr 6y agoWhile being a heinous thing to do, the only devils-advocatey thing I can't refute is that there are no examples of the inverse, e.g. companies not trying to protect their businessmodel via despicable tactics for the greater good of humanity. If this is just an inherent condition of humans working together in groups, shouldn't we rather put the blame on the regulators for ignoring the science and accepting the bribes for this long?