6 ms·

Sue Big Oil

60 points by voisin 4y ago

mabbo 4y ago
Fun philosophical and likely legal debate: do people and companies have an obligation to not do things - legal things - that are to the detriment of society or the planet as a whole? And if so, how far can you take such a rule? I don't mean to invoke the 'slippery slope' excuse. I mean that we don't really have a legal framework around "Don't be bad". We just have specific laws around things you cannot do, and the rest is a free-for-all apparently. One might argue- and I'm not certain that I even do- that it's the role of government to make laws to codify these things that cannot be done explicitly. Because should this come to a courtroom, big oil companies might say "Yes, we knew this would harm the planet. Yes, we did it anyway. What of it? There's no law against harming the planet as a whole."
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  Some very special groups would have you believe that if you disagree with their product or methods you should simply take your business elsewhere. If the world dies despite this freedom, then that's what humanity implicitly wanted all along anyway, so who is this big government to tell me, the free man, what to do or not do?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  There are extrenely broad laws against antisocial behaviour and being a neusance. So the problem isnt hard. But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain. What damages? They extracted the oil and sold it to you, but you were the one who burnt it to drive climate change. Is GM and Anheuser-Busch InBev liable for damages if you got drunk on Bud Light, crashed your Chevy, and killed someone?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Mate, I have never in my life bought fuel, I don't have a car, my stove and heating is electric, so I don't know why you are attackibg me . You do realise 87% of emissions are created by industry, not by end users? Or is also my fault they burnt fuel when they dwmeliver goods?
- fulafel 4y ago
  We have quite a lot of legal framework for damages and environmental externalities. But included the "legal things" qualifier in your question so that makes it into the question of lack of coverage.
mc32 4y ago
The government sues big oil. We vote for politicians to enact laws. If politicians are in the pockets of big oil or any industry, vote them out. The problem is not enough people care about lobbying. So the real problem is with other voters not caring enough. Also, where would we be without big oil? There is a lot of interdependency and bootstrapping necessary to get renewables and industries to transition. China, the largest centralized government that can turn on a dime because they have the "power" to do so, also cannot just kill fossil fuels and there was no "lobbying' to keep fossil fuels going. So it's more nuanced than, let's kill off fossil fuels anon!
milanvrekic 4y ago
I have no special love for big oil, but for a decade G7 governments have worked on limiting the production and transportation of oil (look at pipeline projects in Canada and USA for example). Each oil extraction operation requires tens of millions of dollars to start and run with a closing window of time to recoup the investment. On the other side, we have people yelling foul due to "record profits" I mean, yeah, nominally they are higher but they are not outpacing the inflation. Also, it's easy to forget that when you pay $2.30 cents per liter here in Canada, literally 50% of that is various government taxes (provincial and federal) so when the state basically controls extraction, transportation and to a large extent pricing at the gas station - it's a little bit too convenient to blame the oil companies.
0daystock 4y ago
Let's charitably assume we sue, win, and "big oil" goes completely bankrupt. Does anyone here actually think this will meaningfully change anything? That a void for fossil fuel energy production will just continue to exist unfilled?
- worker_person 4y ago
  Get rid of oil in a rapid fashion, and we go the route of Venezuela. Getting rid of oil is the goal of the current Administration. They are having some success by making it difficult as possible. Now we have a huge mess from it and elections are coming up, so goal is to blame oil for the problems caused by the Administration. If you want to get off oil because you believe it's bad for environment. That is a respectable position. But there is a huge political price to pay when the poor in the country are suffering now from it.
  - whatever1 4y ago
    The poor will be also starving when we will not be able to produce crops due to extreme weather. Climate disaster is around the corner and we need to act yesterday. With our current approach it seems that we screw the poor both today and in the future.
  - jthrowsitaway 4y ago
    How do you support your argument that the current administration is being effective in killing off oil? We are still a net exporter of oil [0] and crude oil production is about where it was at in late 2018. It took a dive during COVID-19 and has been recovering since. 0 - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m... 1 - https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-his...
    - worker_person 4y ago
      You're joking right? He has been killing off pipelines, suspending leases, increasing regulations. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-d...
vfclists 4y ago
How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? How do you prove that carbon output is responsible for climate warming? Assuming you win your case what do Big Oil pay you with? Assuming you win and they cease energy production to eliminate future liabilities where do you obtain your energy from? I asked a question on climate change preparation a few days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 and all I got was crickets.
- mahogany 4y ago
  > How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? Who are the "biggest proponents of global warming theory" in your estimation? Celebrities? Activists? Climate scientists? It seems to me that the people running Sue Big Oil are pretty big proponents of seeking cultural change around climate change. Are they flying private jets?
  - vfclists 4y ago
    > Who are the "biggest proponents of global warming theory" in your estimation? Celebrities? Activists? Climate scientists? The Davos and WEF gang? COPD https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/11/05/118-private-jets-take-leaders-to-cop26-climate-summit-burning-over-1000-tons-of-co2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/11/05/118-...
- aftbit 4y ago
  Ok I'll bite: >How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? Data. If the climate is warming, it is warming regardless of whether or not the people who are advocating for change are being responsible. Ad hominim attacks against people who hold a position really have no bearing on the truth of the position. >How do you prove that carbon output is responsible for climate warming? IMHO, it is impossible to prove causality in such a complex system. At best you can show a strong correlation, which the data does. >Assuming you win your case what do Big Oil pay you with? Money. They have a lot. >Assuming you win and they cease energy production to eliminate future liabilities where do you obtain your energy from? Solar and wind could cover a substantial fraction of our needs. It will not be an immediate switch, regardless of what people might want either way. For example, barring a giant battery breakthrough, aviation will likely be fossil fueled for quite a while longer. Rocketry is even worse. We need to figure out either substantially more grid-scale storage OR a super-conducting grid in order to match demand to supply. Otherwise, how do you heat your house on a cold, still winter night? >I asked a question on climate change preparation a few days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 and all I got was crickets. Well you got 3 replies. Just like this one, that felt a bit like a leading question, so likely people did not want to engage. I recommend reading "Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free" from IEER[1]. It provides an interesting discussion of what would need to happen for the energy sector to go 0-CO2 without nuclear power. It's surprisingly feasible in terms of society scale projects. 1: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...
BenFranklin100 4y ago
We’d be better off suing ourselves. It’s we consumers who ultimately burn the oil for our homes, hospitals, schools, cars, and general electrical needs. Instead of engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, let’s try something useful like a carbon tax that prices in the environmental impacts of fossil fuel consumption.
- aquafox 4y ago
  I don't think a carbon tax will ever work in reality. Big companies are known for their tax evasions. We shouldn't bet the future of the planet on something that is known to not work.
  - legitster 4y ago
    Which is why carbon would be taxed at the point of consumption. Your method to avoid the tax would be picking alternatives.
- sbarre 4y ago
  This "blame the consumer" bullshit has been happening since cigarettes... And it is bullshit. These large corporations, controlled by a relatively small number of _people_ have a disproportionate and coordinated impact on the environment that outstrips anything the average person can do. They need to be held accountable, like we have done to other polluters and entities that have threatened public safety and security in our communities and society. I don't know if this particular effort is the right approach, but I sure am sick of naive people pointing the finger at the average person saying they need to be personally responsible for fixing problems created by large corporations. Edit: not saying the average person should do nothing, but it's literally the least impactful thing that we can do. Corporations and sources of pollution need to be made accountable first. Everything else is just noise.
  - BenFranklin100 4y ago
    Poor analogy. Unlike cigarettes, we actually do need energy. Given antipathy toward nuclear and scale-up issues with renewables, fossil fuels have been the only scalable option over the last decades.
tablespoon 4y ago
> Fossil Fuel giants have captured governments and banks, extracting mega-profits while the world burns. It’s time to Sue Big Oil. Their statement here is contradictory. Either this tactic will be pointless and ineffective, or the "Fossil Fuel giants" will use their "captured governments" to pass laws making it so--laws that the courts will then have to enforce.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Corporations tend to have an easier time "capturing" regulatory bodies than legislatures, it is called "regulatory capture."
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Corporations tend to have an easier time "capturing" regulatory bodies than legislatures, it is called "regulatory capture." Fuel prices are really high right now, and most people still need to buy it. If this kind of tactic causes them to go higher, I don't think it would be a hard sell to a legislature pass a law to negate the tactic. Also having an "easier time 'capturing' regulatory bodies" doesn't mean they're not also pretty successful at influencing legislatures.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Fuel prices have to stay high for us to get off fossil fuels. Thats when it makes economic sence to invest in alternatives
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > Fuel prices have to stay high for us to get off fossil fuels. Thats when it makes economic sence to invest in alternatives Maybe so, but that doesn't make high fuel prices popular. In a democracy, a lot of people will vote for the guy who will bring them down now vs. one who deliberately tries to keep them high as part of some long-term strategy (all else being equal). Pursuing widely unpopular policies to further other goals is something that that non-democracies tend to be better at.
thedudeabides5 4y ago
Why not sue Big Coal? It's responsible for way way more emissions. Now, and in the future.... https://twitter.com/rosedotai/status/1530217546632335363?s=20&t=gQ5dwovqU3ERYuhKNAL66Q https://twitter.com/rosedotai/status/1530217546632335363?s=2...
jchiu1106 4y ago
Of course it's from a .ca domain
- great_reversal 4y ago
  OF COURSE IT IS because its about British Columbia
samatman 4y ago
This seems like a great way to ensure that the surplus value captured by resource extraction are squandered on something which isn't building a sustainable energy future. So if a world with steady-state or reducing levels of CO2, one in which there's also enough energy to support a good life, if that appeals to you: these people are your enemy.
ravenstine 4y ago
Why are activist sites like this making it to the homepage?
- gjvc 4y ago
  same reason as any other; it might be of interest to someone
Bostonian 4y ago
I think that enough institutional and retail investors have foresworn oil and gas companies for non-economic reasons that they will have excess returns going forward. I intend to benefit from this -- one simple way is to invest in the XLE ETF. Since hydrocarbons make our comfortable modern lifestyles possible, I have no qualms in investing the companies that produce them. Studies have found that global warming may cause a loss of 5% of GDP by 2100. That is about 2-3 years normal economic growth and can easily be managed.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
Uh, no. I don't want my expenses to grow even more than they already have.
legitster 4y ago
This is so silly. British Columbia takes in half a billion in taxes a year from their own oil exploitation. Canada as a whole takes in about 80 billion in tax revenue from oil and gas extraction. This isn't just a money maker for oil companies, it's a money maker for the Canadian government. The petition here is for the government to set aside citizen's money so that the government can sue oil companies? The same government that gives the oil companies their leases to extract oil and is a huge benefactor of taxes from said industry? Even if you believed this was not just a special interest group asking for a government to set aside money for special interest groups - Canada only has 38 million people. $1 per person is only $38 million. There are already plenty of climate activist organizations that have way more than this. If that's all it would take to successfully sue oil companies, it can already be done.
Emma_Goldman 4y ago
I think the case for activism like this is fairly simple: (1) We need a managed decline of oil that does two things. One, achieves cost-effective emissions reductions on pace with limiting the rise of the global average temperature to 2C. Two, retains enough production for those activities that are difficult to find carbon-free substitutes for, like the kind of heavily concentrated thermal energy key to a lot of industrial processes. (2) We are veering far past that trajectory. The policies of the governments of the world currently put us on course for an average expected 2.7C warming. [1] Current production plans suggest that in 2030 the world will be producing something like twice the oil it should. [2] (3) We should use whatever sensible means possible to push oil production down towards the decarbonisation slope consistent with 2C (and ideally towards 1.5C), including - if and where it works - litigation. [1] https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/#2021downloads https://productiongap.org/2021report/#2021downloads
35235235235 4y ago
> extracting mega-profits You realize these companies are largely publicly traded, and their financial statements can be looked at? For example, compare ExxonMobil (the firm Biden's ire has mostly been directed at) with Google: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XOM/key-statistics?p=XOM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XOM/key-statistics?p=XOM >Profit Margin 8.34% >Operating Margin (ttm) 10.86% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL/key-statistics?p=GOOGL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL/key-statistics?p=GOOGL > Profit Margin 27.57% > Operating Margin (ttm) 30.47% Those are just in relative terms. In absolute $$$ figures, there's no comparison. Oh, Exxon also paid a tax rate double that of Google's. The "price gouging" and "record profits" (as long as a company grows year to year, even if only at the rate of the wider economy, it will have record profits year after year by definition, assuming margins remain constant) rhetoric just proves these people are either lying or ignorant of basic finance and economics.
bigtex 4y ago
Sue Big Pharma.

60 points by voisin 4y ago

Fun philosophical and likely legal debate: do people and companies have an obligation to not do things - legal things - that are to the detriment of society or the planet as a whole? And if so, how far can you take such a rule? I don't mean to invoke the 'slippery slope' excuse. I mean that we don't really have a legal framework around "Don't be bad". We just have specific laws around things you cannot do, and the rest is a free-for-all apparently. One might argue- and I'm not certain that I even do- that it's the role of government to make laws to codify these things that cannot be done explicitly. Because should this come to a courtroom, big oil companies might say "Yes, we knew this would harm the planet. Yes, we did it anyway. What of it? There's no law against harming the planet as a whole."

nebulousthree 4y ago
Some very special groups would have you believe that if you disagree with their product or methods you should simply take your business elsewhere. If the world dies despite this freedom, then that's what humanity implicitly wanted all along anyway, so who is this big government to tell me, the free man, what to do or not do?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
There are extrenely broad laws against antisocial behaviour and being a neusance. So the problem isnt hard. But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain. What damages? They extracted the oil and sold it to you, but you were the one who burnt it to drive climate change. Is GM and Anheuser-Busch InBev liable for damages if you got drunk on Bud Light, crashed your Chevy, and killed someone?
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Mate, I have never in my life bought fuel, I don't have a car, my stove and heating is electric, so I don't know why you are attackibg me . You do realise 87% of emissions are created by industry, not by end users? Or is also my fault they burnt fuel when they dwmeliver goods?
fulafel 4y ago
We have quite a lot of legal framework for damages and environmental externalities. But included the "legal things" qualifier in your question so that makes it into the question of lack of coverage.

mc32 4y ago

The government sues big oil. We vote for politicians to enact laws. If politicians are in the pockets of big oil or any industry, vote them out. The problem is not enough people care about lobbying. So the real problem is with other voters not caring enough. Also, where would we be without big oil? There is a lot of interdependency and bootstrapping necessary to get renewables and industries to transition. China, the largest centralized government that can turn on a dime because they have the "power" to do so, also cannot just kill fossil fuels and there was no "lobbying' to keep fossil fuels going. So it's more nuanced than, let's kill off fossil fuels anon!

milanvrekic 4y ago

I have no special love for big oil, but for a decade G7 governments have worked on limiting the production and transportation of oil (look at pipeline projects in Canada and USA for example). Each oil extraction operation requires tens of millions of dollars to start and run with a closing window of time to recoup the investment. On the other side, we have people yelling foul due to "record profits" I mean, yeah, nominally they are higher but they are not outpacing the inflation. Also, it's easy to forget that when you pay $2.30 cents per liter here in Canada, literally 50% of that is various government taxes (provincial and federal) so when the state basically controls extraction, transportation and to a large extent pricing at the gas station - it's a little bit too convenient to blame the oil companies.

0daystock 4y ago

Let's charitably assume we sue, win, and "big oil" goes completely bankrupt. Does anyone here actually think this will meaningfully change anything? That a void for fossil fuel energy production will just continue to exist unfilled?

worker_person 4y ago
Get rid of oil in a rapid fashion, and we go the route of Venezuela. Getting rid of oil is the goal of the current Administration. They are having some success by making it difficult as possible. Now we have a huge mess from it and elections are coming up, so goal is to blame oil for the problems caused by the Administration. If you want to get off oil because you believe it's bad for environment. That is a respectable position. But there is a huge political price to pay when the poor in the country are suffering now from it.
- whatever1 4y ago
  The poor will be also starving when we will not be able to produce crops due to extreme weather. Climate disaster is around the corner and we need to act yesterday. With our current approach it seems that we screw the poor both today and in the future.
- jthrowsitaway 4y ago
  How do you support your argument that the current administration is being effective in killing off oil? We are still a net exporter of oil [0] and crude oil production is about where it was at in late 2018. It took a dive during COVID-19 and has been recovering since. 0 - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m... 1 - https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-his...
  - worker_person 4y ago
    You're joking right? He has been killing off pipelines, suspending leases, increasing regulations. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-d...

vfclists 4y ago

How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? How do you prove that carbon output is responsible for climate warming? Assuming you win your case what do Big Oil pay you with? Assuming you win and they cease energy production to eliminate future liabilities where do you obtain your energy from? I asked a question on climate change preparation a few days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 and all I got was crickets.

mahogany 4y ago
> How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? Who are the "biggest proponents of global warming theory" in your estimation? Celebrities? Activists? Climate scientists? It seems to me that the people running Sue Big Oil are pretty big proponents of seeking cultural change around climate change. Are they flying private jets?
- vfclists 4y ago
  > Who are the "biggest proponents of global warming theory" in your estimation? Celebrities? Activists? Climate scientists? The Davos and WEF gang? COPD https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/11/05/118-private-jets-take-leaders-to-cop26-climate-summit-burning-over-1000-tons-of-co2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/11/05/118-...
aftbit 4y ago
Ok I'll bite: >How do you convince people about carbon based climate warming when the biggest proponents of global warming theory fly to conferences to discuss global warning in private jets, and love SUVs and large limousines like there's no tomorrow? Data. If the climate is warming, it is warming regardless of whether or not the people who are advocating for change are being responsible. Ad hominim attacks against people who hold a position really have no bearing on the truth of the position. >How do you prove that carbon output is responsible for climate warming? IMHO, it is impossible to prove causality in such a complex system. At best you can show a strong correlation, which the data does. >Assuming you win your case what do Big Oil pay you with? Money. They have a lot. >Assuming you win and they cease energy production to eliminate future liabilities where do you obtain your energy from? Solar and wind could cover a substantial fraction of our needs. It will not be an immediate switch, regardless of what people might want either way. For example, barring a giant battery breakthrough, aviation will likely be fossil fueled for quite a while longer. Rocketry is even worse. We need to figure out either substantially more grid-scale storage OR a super-conducting grid in order to match demand to supply. Otherwise, how do you heat your house on a cold, still winter night? >I asked a question on climate change preparation a few days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756033 and all I got was crickets. Well you got 3 replies. Just like this one, that felt a bit like a leading question, so likely people did not want to engage. I recommend reading "Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free" from IEER[1]. It provides an interesting discussion of what would need to happen for the energy sector to go 0-CO2 without nuclear power. It's surprisingly feasible in terms of society scale projects. 1: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...

BenFranklin100 4y ago

We’d be better off suing ourselves. It’s we consumers who ultimately burn the oil for our homes, hospitals, schools, cars, and general electrical needs. Instead of engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, let’s try something useful like a carbon tax that prices in the environmental impacts of fossil fuel consumption.

aquafox 4y ago
I don't think a carbon tax will ever work in reality. Big companies are known for their tax evasions. We shouldn't bet the future of the planet on something that is known to not work.
- legitster 4y ago
  Which is why carbon would be taxed at the point of consumption. Your method to avoid the tax would be picking alternatives.
sbarre 4y ago
This "blame the consumer" bullshit has been happening since cigarettes... And it is bullshit. These large corporations, controlled by a relatively small number of _people_ have a disproportionate and coordinated impact on the environment that outstrips anything the average person can do. They need to be held accountable, like we have done to other polluters and entities that have threatened public safety and security in our communities and society. I don't know if this particular effort is the right approach, but I sure am sick of naive people pointing the finger at the average person saying they need to be personally responsible for fixing problems created by large corporations. Edit: not saying the average person should do nothing, but it's literally the least impactful thing that we can do. Corporations and sources of pollution need to be made accountable first. Everything else is just noise.
- BenFranklin100 4y ago
  Poor analogy. Unlike cigarettes, we actually do need energy. Given antipathy toward nuclear and scale-up issues with renewables, fossil fuels have been the only scalable option over the last decades.

tablespoon 4y ago

> Fossil Fuel giants have captured governments and banks, extracting mega-profits while the world burns. It’s time to Sue Big Oil. Their statement here is contradictory. Either this tactic will be pointless and ineffective, or the "Fossil Fuel giants" will use their "captured governments" to pass laws making it so--laws that the courts will then have to enforce.

whatshisface 4y ago
Corporations tend to have an easier time "capturing" regulatory bodies than legislatures, it is called "regulatory capture."
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Corporations tend to have an easier time "capturing" regulatory bodies than legislatures, it is called "regulatory capture." Fuel prices are really high right now, and most people still need to buy it. If this kind of tactic causes them to go higher, I don't think it would be a hard sell to a legislature pass a law to negate the tactic. Also having an "easier time 'capturing' regulatory bodies" doesn't mean they're not also pretty successful at influencing legislatures.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Fuel prices have to stay high for us to get off fossil fuels. Thats when it makes economic sence to invest in alternatives
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Fuel prices have to stay high for us to get off fossil fuels. Thats when it makes economic sence to invest in alternatives Maybe so, but that doesn't make high fuel prices popular. In a democracy, a lot of people will vote for the guy who will bring them down now vs. one who deliberately tries to keep them high as part of some long-term strategy (all else being equal). Pursuing widely unpopular policies to further other goals is something that that non-democracies tend to be better at.

thedudeabides5 4y ago

Why not sue Big Coal? It's responsible for way way more emissions. Now, and in the future.... https://twitter.com/rosedotai/status/1530217546632335363?s=20&t=gQ5dwovqU3ERYuhKNAL66Q https://twitter.com/rosedotai/status/1530217546632335363?s=2...

jchiu1106 4y ago

Of course it's from a .ca domain

great_reversal 4y ago
OF COURSE IT IS because its about British Columbia

samatman 4y ago

This seems like a great way to ensure that the surplus value captured by resource extraction are squandered on something which isn't building a sustainable energy future. So if a world with steady-state or reducing levels of CO2, one in which there's also enough energy to support a good life, if that appeals to you: these people are your enemy.

ravenstine 4y ago

Why are activist sites like this making it to the homepage?

gjvc 4y ago
same reason as any other; it might be of interest to someone

Bostonian 4y ago

I think that enough institutional and retail investors have foresworn oil and gas companies for non-economic reasons that they will have excess returns going forward. I intend to benefit from this -- one simple way is to invest in the XLE ETF. Since hydrocarbons make our comfortable modern lifestyles possible, I have no qualms in investing the companies that produce them. Studies have found that global warming may cause a loss of 5% of GDP by 2100. That is about 2-3 years normal economic growth and can easily be managed.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

Uh, no. I don't want my expenses to grow even more than they already have.

legitster 4y ago

This is so silly. British Columbia takes in half a billion in taxes a year from their own oil exploitation. Canada as a whole takes in about 80 billion in tax revenue from oil and gas extraction. This isn't just a money maker for oil companies, it's a money maker for the Canadian government. The petition here is for the government to set aside citizen's money so that the government can sue oil companies? The same government that gives the oil companies their leases to extract oil and is a huge benefactor of taxes from said industry? Even if you believed this was not just a special interest group asking for a government to set aside money for special interest groups - Canada only has 38 million people. $1 per person is only $38 million. There are already plenty of climate activist organizations that have way more than this. If that's all it would take to successfully sue oil companies, it can already be done.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago

I think the case for activism like this is fairly simple: (1) We need a managed decline of oil that does two things. One, achieves cost-effective emissions reductions on pace with limiting the rise of the global average temperature to 2C. Two, retains enough production for those activities that are difficult to find carbon-free substitutes for, like the kind of heavily concentrated thermal energy key to a lot of industrial processes. (2) We are veering far past that trajectory. The policies of the governments of the world currently put us on course for an average expected 2.7C warming. [1] Current production plans suggest that in 2030 the world will be producing something like twice the oil it should. [2] (3) We should use whatever sensible means possible to push oil production down towards the decarbonisation slope consistent with 2C (and ideally towards 1.5C), including - if and where it works - litigation. [1] https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/#2021downloads https://productiongap.org/2021report/#2021downloads

35235235235 4y ago

> extracting mega-profits You realize these companies are largely publicly traded, and their financial statements can be looked at? For example, compare ExxonMobil (the firm Biden's ire has mostly been directed at) with Google: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XOM/key-statistics?p=XOM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XOM/key-statistics?p=XOM >Profit Margin 8.34% >Operating Margin (ttm) 10.86% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL/key-statistics?p=GOOGL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL/key-statistics?p=GOOGL > Profit Margin 27.57% > Operating Margin (ttm) 30.47% Those are just in relative terms. In absolute $$$ figures, there's no comparison. Oh, Exxon also paid a tax rate double that of Google's. The "price gouging" and "record profits" (as long as a company grows year to year, even if only at the rate of the wider economy, it will have record profits year after year by definition, assuming margins remain constant) rhetoric just proves these people are either lying or ignorant of basic finance and economics.

bigtex 4y ago

Sue Big Pharma.