3 ms·

Do they also have a legal obligation to lie and fund disinformation?

qeternity 5y ago
Complete strawman. I never said this. Oil companies/execs should be held accountable for misdeeds. But that is a tiny fraction of the problem facing us. Let's say they came out decades ago and said "hey, there's probably going to be some repercussions for using our products" ... do you really think that would have changed anything? We know right now what needs to be done. And yet Biden is running around pleading with OPEC to increase production to bring gasoline prices down. Why? Because people want cheap hydrocarbons, no matter how many downvotes you throw at me.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  > Let's say they came out decades ago and said "hey, there's probably going to be some repercussions for using our products" ... do you really think that would have changed anything? Yes. Big oil's lies and disinformation seeded the denialism that took hold in the Republican party decades ago.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    Fine. What would that have changed? You can blame denialism all you want but a much more powerful motive is economic. For most of their history, fossil fuels have been the cheapest source of energy. It's not as if I see half of the US (Democrats) driving EVs, installing solar on their roofs, eating plant based diets, etc. Blaming Republican denial is just dishonest.
    - thinkcontext 5y ago
      I think Exxon et al saying climate change is real and their own internal research confirms it would have changed policy. Better policies could have meant batteries, nuclear, solar, wind, etc could all have been cheaper faster. It could have meant a carbon border tax which would have hamstrung a lot of US manufacturing going to China. The negotiations between Obama and Lindsey Graham for a carbon price might have succeeded. There's a whole "What if?" where the innovation and beginnings of a post-denial GOP could have happened earlier.

Complete strawman. I never said this. Oil companies/execs should be held accountable for misdeeds. But that is a tiny fraction of the problem facing us. Let's say they came out decades ago and said "hey, there's probably going to be some repercussions for using our products" ... do you really think that would have changed anything? We know right now what needs to be done. And yet Biden is running around pleading with OPEC to increase production to bring gasoline prices down. Why? Because people want cheap hydrocarbons, no matter how many downvotes you throw at me.

thinkcontext 5y ago
> Let's say they came out decades ago and said "hey, there's probably going to be some repercussions for using our products" ... do you really think that would have changed anything? Yes. Big oil's lies and disinformation seeded the denialism that took hold in the Republican party decades ago.
- qeternity 5y ago
  Fine. What would that have changed? You can blame denialism all you want but a much more powerful motive is economic. For most of their history, fossil fuels have been the cheapest source of energy. It's not as if I see half of the US (Democrats) driving EVs, installing solar on their roofs, eating plant based diets, etc. Blaming Republican denial is just dishonest.
  - thinkcontext 5y ago
    I think Exxon et al saying climate change is real and their own internal research confirms it would have changed policy. Better policies could have meant batteries, nuclear, solar, wind, etc could all have been cheaper faster. It could have meant a carbon border tax which would have hamstrung a lot of US manufacturing going to China. The negotiations between Obama and Lindsey Graham for a carbon price might have succeeded. There's a whole "What if?" where the innovation and beginnings of a post-denial GOP could have happened earlier.