11 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoFine. 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 agoI 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.