5 ms·

The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start inve

The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.

acdha 5y ago
An especially key part was the way denialism cut against economy measures: the average vehicle sold in the United States today has mileage which is substantially worse than you saw in the 1980s because there's been a multi-decade push towards much heavier vehicles with sportier engines, special subsidies for trucks and SUVs, successful attempts to exempt various industries from stricter emissions controls, etc. Had CO2 emissions been taken seriously — and given that successful predictions of the problem go back over a century we had plenty of time to plan — we could have bought additional decades to work on alternatives by continuing improvements in efficiency. Procrastinating means that we'll see more disruptive changes and worse climate impacts.
flavius29663 5y ago
we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  I'd prefer it happened today
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Why wait?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 5y ago
  Yes, and also Michelin, if they don't clean up their behavior: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyre... I don't see how this is controversial at all. If you provide something that causes damages and make a profit, why shouldn't you also be liable for the economic harms you incur in addition to the economic gains you enjoy? Nobody is forcing these companies to continue doing what they are doing, they do it voluntarily, for money.
- yohannparis 5y ago
  If they knew that it was harmful and decided to ignore and hide the facts, yes!
JamesBarney 5y ago
I don't think Shell understood the harms of CO2 any earlier than researchers in the field. Should they punish anyone who initiated a disinformation campaign? absolutely! But blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Maybe we should not have to improve the quality of our lives at any price.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- epistasis 5y ago
  > blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly. "Blame" isn't really the important part here, the important part is enacting corrective action for harm done. Even if they hadn't conducted a misinformation campaign, Shell profited by causing great harm. As a purely financial entity, without introducing any morality or ethics, they owe the financial damages they have incurred, and perhaps their customers too. Though it's somewhat rare for a customer to be responsible for a product's negative effects, especially when the company profitting off the sale vociferously denies that the harm exists! But it's important to note that Shell isn't even being asked to pay back the debt they have incurred. They are simply asked to reduce the harm they are enacting, with nine years to change. This is such a trivial ask in light of the economic harm that Shell has wrought upon their customers, and more importantly, the entire world.
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    If you take every super major oil producer today and say they have to produce half as much oil what happens? They sell off half their assets to smaller oil companies. But you still have the same number of wells pumping oil/gas. I just don't see how this helps anyone, it's a silly PR win. Shell didn't wrought any economic harm on their customers. We as a society have failed to regulate the consumption of oil/gas (as well as all other sources of CO2 emission), this is not directly the oil/gas companies fault, we're just using them as a scape goat. We might as well blame car companies, construction companies, power companies, steel manufacturing companies who are all just as if not more responsible for CO2 emissions.

acdha 5y ago

An especially key part was the way denialism cut against economy measures: the average vehicle sold in the United States today has mileage which is substantially worse than you saw in the 1980s because there's been a multi-decade push towards much heavier vehicles with sportier engines, special subsidies for trucks and SUVs, successful attempts to exempt various industries from stricter emissions controls, etc. Had CO2 emissions been taken seriously — and given that successful predictions of the problem go back over a century we had plenty of time to plan — we could have bought additional decades to work on alternatives by continuing improvements in efficiency. Procrastinating means that we'll see more disruptive changes and worse climate impacts.

flavius29663 5y ago

we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
I'd prefer it happened today
kevingadd 5y ago
Why wait?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 5y ago
Yes, and also Michelin, if they don't clean up their behavior: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyre... I don't see how this is controversial at all. If you provide something that causes damages and make a profit, why shouldn't you also be liable for the economic harms you incur in addition to the economic gains you enjoy? Nobody is forcing these companies to continue doing what they are doing, they do it voluntarily, for money.
yohannparis 5y ago
If they knew that it was harmful and decided to ignore and hide the facts, yes!

JamesBarney 5y ago

I don't think Shell understood the harms of CO2 any earlier than researchers in the field. Should they punish anyone who initiated a disinformation campaign? absolutely! But blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly.

kaba0 5y ago
Maybe we should not have to improve the quality of our lives at any price.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
epistasis 5y ago
> blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly. "Blame" isn't really the important part here, the important part is enacting corrective action for harm done. Even if they hadn't conducted a misinformation campaign, Shell profited by causing great harm. As a purely financial entity, without introducing any morality or ethics, they owe the financial damages they have incurred, and perhaps their customers too. Though it's somewhat rare for a customer to be responsible for a product's negative effects, especially when the company profitting off the sale vociferously denies that the harm exists! But it's important to note that Shell isn't even being asked to pay back the debt they have incurred. They are simply asked to reduce the harm they are enacting, with nine years to change. This is such a trivial ask in light of the economic harm that Shell has wrought upon their customers, and more importantly, the entire world.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  If you take every super major oil producer today and say they have to produce half as much oil what happens? They sell off half their assets to smaller oil companies. But you still have the same number of wells pumping oil/gas. I just don't see how this helps anyone, it's a silly PR win. Shell didn't wrought any economic harm on their customers. We as a society have failed to regulate the consumption of oil/gas (as well as all other sources of CO2 emission), this is not directly the oil/gas companies fault, we're just using them as a scape goat. We might as well blame car companies, construction companies, power companies, steel manufacturing companies who are all just as if not more responsible for CO2 emissions.