3 ms·
It 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
by kennywinker 5y ago
It 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.