4 ms·

Exxon is hardly 'some company' but I actually don't really understand what your confusion is. This just shows that oil companies knew climate change was real, b

Exxon is hardly 'some company' but I actually don't really understand what your confusion is. This just shows that oil companies knew climate change was real, being caused by their actions, and was serious, decades ago, and so is yet another nail in the coffin of climate denial. It is not a necessary one since the same science was also done outside of oil companies, but it shows how messed up the profit motive is when it comes to protecting future civilisation from the worst of climate change.

danbruc 4y ago
What if this is news? We know that they were modeling this for a long time. We know that goals of companies are not always well aligned with what is best for mankind. This is my confusion, I don't see what this really adds to the discussion.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Corporations don't get a magical exemption from being responsible for harm. Smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol, and opiates have all been punished with huge payouts. [1] Climate catastrophe is no different. [1] The payouts could have been bigger - much bigger. But the principle stands.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    Exxon did not cause climate change, consumers consuming the oil they extracted did. And as far as I know we were not forced to consume that oil, were we? Did they try to mislead people about the consequences so that they are less likely to reduce their oil consumption, sure. But it is ridiculousness to suggest that if only Exxon had not tried to mislead us, then we would have been aware of the consequences, stopped using oil, and climate change would have been averted.
- forgetfulness 4y ago
  It doesn't add anything new to those who are already aware that Exxon conducted these studies, and have the expectation that this is normal behavior to work around when dealing with businesses, small or large. Not everyone holds knowledge of this (say, people who may have recently started reading Hacker News), and not everyone would come to the conclusion that this is just something to accept and move on. For instance, shareholders are suing Exxon for not being made aware of this.

danbruc 4y ago

What if this is news? We know that they were modeling this for a long time. We know that goals of companies are not always well aligned with what is best for mankind. This is my confusion, I don't see what this really adds to the discussion.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Corporations don't get a magical exemption from being responsible for harm. Smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol, and opiates have all been punished with huge payouts. [1] Climate catastrophe is no different. [1] The payouts could have been bigger - much bigger. But the principle stands.
- danbruc 4y ago
  Exxon did not cause climate change, consumers consuming the oil they extracted did. And as far as I know we were not forced to consume that oil, were we? Did they try to mislead people about the consequences so that they are less likely to reduce their oil consumption, sure. But it is ridiculousness to suggest that if only Exxon had not tried to mislead us, then we would have been aware of the consequences, stopped using oil, and climate change would have been averted.
forgetfulness 4y ago
It doesn't add anything new to those who are already aware that Exxon conducted these studies, and have the expectation that this is normal behavior to work around when dealing with businesses, small or large. Not everyone holds knowledge of this (say, people who may have recently started reading Hacker News), and not everyone would come to the conclusion that this is just something to accept and move on. For instance, shareholders are suing Exxon for not being made aware of this.