3 ms·
This assumes the public had appetite for expensive climate policies that subverted by the oil companies. In reality most voters don’t want to pay a lot for ener
by ryan93 5y ago
This assumes the public had appetite for expensive climate policies that subverted by the oil companies. In reality most voters don’t want to pay a lot for energy
- king_magic 5y agoThey'll much prefer paying a lot for energy vs. the coming mass extinction from human driven climate change.
- sokoloff 5y agoI have some serious doubts that 1990s Bob wanted to pay a lot for energy so that 2050 Linda could live better.
- dwaltrip 5y agoYeah! Fuck the future generations. Perhaps we should murder and eat our grandchildren. Sounds pretty tasty. Oh I misspoke. Let’s eat the kids from the developing nations. Far more civilized.
- toiletfuneral 5y agolol sure, just like voters REALLY wanted the F-35
- cool_hacker 5y agoWell, the hackers on TheHackersNews certainly don’t want to High taxes amirite hackers?!
- kennywinker 5y agoIt doesn't assume the public had an appetite, it describes how these bad-actors spiked the existing appetite. Even the idea that it's going to be expensive is a product of their disinformation. Inaction is the expensive choice... the cost of environmental degradation is HUGE. e.g. the california wildfires, the massive west coast heat wave this year, hurricanes, building dykes to hold back rising sea levels. On and on. The bill for fossil fuels is stacking up and we're all going to pay for it.
- ryan93 5y ago*the future cost. I’m not saying the oil companies weren’t bad just skeptical that they are why we don’t have climate action
- kennywinker 5y agoWell, the article outlines how oil companies influenced our lack of climate action. So the question is not "did they have an impact", it's "how much impact did they have". And given how the feedback loops of climate inaction and climate change work, even a little push in the wrong direction is likely going to be responsible for millions of deaths before the century is out.