4 ms·

>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 responsi

>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.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    That’s fair and I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think it’s reasonable to say we couldn’t have expected them to do any different than they did.

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.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  That’s fair and I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think it’s reasonable to say we couldn’t have expected them to do any different than they did.