4 ms·

I have absolutely no love for oil companies, but retroactive penalties for actions that weren't illegal at the time and that all of American society contributed

I have absolutely no love for oil companies, but retroactive penalties for actions that weren't illegal at the time and that all of American society contributed to seems misguided to me. This is in the same vein to me as letting websites get sued for actions of their users, and gun manufacturers getting sued for shootings. It's antithetical with the concept of personal responsibility and impossible for a business owner to plan for. I wish our politicians would focus more aggressively on actually incentivising emission reduction/carbon capture investment and less on pointing fingers and shifting blame.

Dobbs 5y ago
But if the companies knew what they were doing was harmful and did it anyways? Or what if the companies purposefully suppressed research that showed that their actions are bad?
scrollaway 5y ago
> This is in the same vein to me as letting websites get sued for actions of their users, and gun manufacturers getting sued for shootings I wonder why you think these are comparable to retroactive sanctions? I think the idea is that the penalties are retroactive because the companies knew the damage they were causing and didn't care. A more similar comparison point would be retroactive fines against tobacco companies that knew they were making people sick and didn't care.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Or opioid manufacturers and distributors who knew they were getting people addicted and didn't care.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Or vice-presidents and their weapons companies and their Democrat cheerleaders, who knew Iraq didn't have WMDs and didn't care.
- Omniusaspirer 5y ago
  >the companies knew the damage they were causing and didn't care. As implied in the next sentence- it seems to be a general trend of ignoring personal responsibility and choosing scapegoats after the damage has already been done which doesn't feel productive. I would rather energy be spent looking forward and addressing the root causes. These are oil companies we're talking about. Their entire raison d'etre is the production of oil to meet global energy and materials demands. What would you have had them do instead? Any attempt to pivot outside the oil business would have been pointless as a competitor would have simply risen up to meet demand in their place. They couldn't exactly reduce oil consumption even if they wanted to- they aren't in the business of making fuel efficient cars, plant based plastics, etc. They simply collect and process a raw material which the rest of the world then pollutes with. I'm all for punitive action for oil spills and funding corruption, but retroactive emissions is just picking an easy target to lay blame on.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    > What would you have had them do instead Not undermine climate change activism and legislation at every turn? It's one thing to be unhappy about climate regulation, another to blatantly lie about their own impact on climate. This is the planet we're talking about, you realize that, right? There's a degree of responsibility especially if you are one of the biggest players in the undergoing change.
    - Omniusaspirer 5y ago
      The proposed legislation doesn't punish them for lobbying against climate change legislation, it simply chooses a convenient decade and hammers some select companies with a nice round number of 500 billion in retroactive fines. It's lazy, likely illegal, and doesn't address any real problems going forward. I'm an environmentalist who's tired of the lip service and grandstanding. Expand EV credits, extend solar credits, shut down coal plants, legislate reduced usage of plastics, enforce high energy efficiency in building codes, promote density, legislate electronics efficiency/reduced vampire power draw, and build high speed cross country mass transit. These are all real targets that would give us a better world and cut emissions in a much more tangible way than this drivel.
scns 5y ago
What about leaded fuel? They had their own handsomely paid "scientist" to "debunk" the "leaded fuel pollutes the air" hypothesis. We just had a discussion yesterday, in the ebay thread IIRC about big companies trying to silence people who try to challenge their highly profitable practices that detrimental to everyone else.
- the-dude 5y ago
  Did you miss https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28016921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28016921 ( Has the Lead-Crime Hypothesis Been Debunked? )
  - tzs 5y ago
    That's not really relevant. The detrimental biological effects of lead pollution that the gasoline companies knew about and lied about to try to stop regulation have not been debunked, and in fact are rather firmly established. The lead-crime hypothesis was formulated after the phase out of leaded gasoline started. Drops in crime seemed to correlate well with the phase out, with variations in the crime drop matching variations in the implementation of the phase out.
danieka 5y ago
Yes, from my European perspective this does seem weird. Sanctions must be ruled by the principle of legality which also prohibits retroactive punishment. So it's not possible to retroactively make something criminal. This principle ought to extend to tax law. I don't understand why they wouldn't just tax future emissions. They would still achieve the same result without being tied up in the courts. Even if the actions were not illegal they clearly caused damage, and there is ample evidence the companies in question were aware that their action were causing damage. That seems like grounds for a civil action against the companies. If the federal government want compensation for damages caused maybe it should sue the companies in court? Is that even possible?
williamdclt 5y ago
Counterpoint (not sure I believe in it myself, but worth thinking about): when France got liberated from Nazi occupation, companies that worked with Nazi Germany _did_ get sanctioned even though it wasn't illegal at the time. See for example Renault that got nationalised. There's probably other examples that don't hit Godwin's law, but this is the one I know. If there can't be any retroactive penalty, corporations will always be exploiting loopholes and grey zones. The law can only play catch-up. If we want to incentivise companies to consider environmental impact at the cost of their profit, this sort of sword of Damocles could be a tool. Again, not convinced of it myself, but something to consider.
user-the-name 5y ago
Pretty sure causing widespread damage was illegal then, just as it is now. It's not illegal to throw a rock. It is illegal to throw a rock and break a window. Why should the same not apply for emissions?
thunkshift1 5y ago
I disagree. So its okay that they denied climate change and actively downplayed its risks through misinformation campaigns? What kind of example would we be setting for this kind of behavior if we just let it go because it was ‘in the retrospective’. Comparing with the tobacco companies, didnt the courts of law penalize them for hiding cancer and health risks? How is this any different then?

Dobbs 5y ago

But if the companies knew what they were doing was harmful and did it anyways? Or what if the companies purposefully suppressed research that showed that their actions are bad?

scrollaway 5y ago

> This is in the same vein to me as letting websites get sued for actions of their users, and gun manufacturers getting sued for shootings I wonder why you think these are comparable to retroactive sanctions? I think the idea is that the penalties are retroactive because the companies knew the damage they were causing and didn't care. A more similar comparison point would be retroactive fines against tobacco companies that knew they were making people sick and didn't care.

ethbr0 5y ago
Or opioid manufacturers and distributors who knew they were getting people addicted and didn't care.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Or vice-presidents and their weapons companies and their Democrat cheerleaders, who knew Iraq didn't have WMDs and didn't care.
Omniusaspirer 5y ago
>the companies knew the damage they were causing and didn't care. As implied in the next sentence- it seems to be a general trend of ignoring personal responsibility and choosing scapegoats after the damage has already been done which doesn't feel productive. I would rather energy be spent looking forward and addressing the root causes. These are oil companies we're talking about. Their entire raison d'etre is the production of oil to meet global energy and materials demands. What would you have had them do instead? Any attempt to pivot outside the oil business would have been pointless as a competitor would have simply risen up to meet demand in their place. They couldn't exactly reduce oil consumption even if they wanted to- they aren't in the business of making fuel efficient cars, plant based plastics, etc. They simply collect and process a raw material which the rest of the world then pollutes with. I'm all for punitive action for oil spills and funding corruption, but retroactive emissions is just picking an easy target to lay blame on.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  > What would you have had them do instead Not undermine climate change activism and legislation at every turn? It's one thing to be unhappy about climate regulation, another to blatantly lie about their own impact on climate. This is the planet we're talking about, you realize that, right? There's a degree of responsibility especially if you are one of the biggest players in the undergoing change.
  - Omniusaspirer 5y ago
    The proposed legislation doesn't punish them for lobbying against climate change legislation, it simply chooses a convenient decade and hammers some select companies with a nice round number of 500 billion in retroactive fines. It's lazy, likely illegal, and doesn't address any real problems going forward. I'm an environmentalist who's tired of the lip service and grandstanding. Expand EV credits, extend solar credits, shut down coal plants, legislate reduced usage of plastics, enforce high energy efficiency in building codes, promote density, legislate electronics efficiency/reduced vampire power draw, and build high speed cross country mass transit. These are all real targets that would give us a better world and cut emissions in a much more tangible way than this drivel.

scns 5y ago

What about leaded fuel? They had their own handsomely paid "scientist" to "debunk" the "leaded fuel pollutes the air" hypothesis. We just had a discussion yesterday, in the ebay thread IIRC about big companies trying to silence people who try to challenge their highly profitable practices that detrimental to everyone else.

the-dude 5y ago
Did you miss https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28016921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28016921 ( Has the Lead-Crime Hypothesis Been Debunked? )
- tzs 5y ago
  That's not really relevant. The detrimental biological effects of lead pollution that the gasoline companies knew about and lied about to try to stop regulation have not been debunked, and in fact are rather firmly established. The lead-crime hypothesis was formulated after the phase out of leaded gasoline started. Drops in crime seemed to correlate well with the phase out, with variations in the crime drop matching variations in the implementation of the phase out.

danieka 5y ago

Yes, from my European perspective this does seem weird. Sanctions must be ruled by the principle of legality which also prohibits retroactive punishment. So it's not possible to retroactively make something criminal. This principle ought to extend to tax law. I don't understand why they wouldn't just tax future emissions. They would still achieve the same result without being tied up in the courts. Even if the actions were not illegal they clearly caused damage, and there is ample evidence the companies in question were aware that their action were causing damage. That seems like grounds for a civil action against the companies. If the federal government want compensation for damages caused maybe it should sue the companies in court? Is that even possible?

williamdclt 5y ago

Counterpoint (not sure I believe in it myself, but worth thinking about): when France got liberated from Nazi occupation, companies that worked with Nazi Germany _did_ get sanctioned even though it wasn't illegal at the time. See for example Renault that got nationalised. There's probably other examples that don't hit Godwin's law, but this is the one I know. If there can't be any retroactive penalty, corporations will always be exploiting loopholes and grey zones. The law can only play catch-up. If we want to incentivise companies to consider environmental impact at the cost of their profit, this sort of sword of Damocles could be a tool. Again, not convinced of it myself, but something to consider.

user-the-name 5y ago

Pretty sure causing widespread damage was illegal then, just as it is now. It's not illegal to throw a rock. It is illegal to throw a rock and break a window. Why should the same not apply for emissions?

thunkshift1 5y ago

I disagree. So its okay that they denied climate change and actively downplayed its risks through misinformation campaigns? What kind of example would we be setting for this kind of behavior if we just let it go because it was ‘in the retrospective’. Comparing with the tobacco companies, didnt the courts of law penalize them for hiding cancer and health risks? How is this any different then?