4 ms·

Climate change increases the number and severity of extreme weather events in a given year. That is well documented by now. So you can’t attribute all heat wave

by tfourb 3y ago

Climate change increases the number and severity of extreme weather events in a given year. That is well documented by now. So you can’t attribute all heat wave deaths to climate change, but you you can have a high confidence in attributing some of them. You can also quantify the contribution of individual companies to historical CO2 emissions. As long as the court follows that basic logic (and courts in other countries have done so) I don’t see a problem.

bruce511 3y ago
Ah, but do you ascribe blame to the fuel producers? Or the fuel burners? As a liquid it's not a problem. Burning it is the problem. Therefore should it not be the burners who are responsible? Perhaps the county should just ban the burning of fool fuels. If its causing do many local deaths then surely that's the logical first step? Or would that just be political suicide?
- tfourb 3y ago
  The plaintiffs in this case do not argue that one or another party is responsible for the ultimate emission of CO2. They argue that the oil companies recklessly and with the aim of increasing their profits deceived the public about negative externalities associated with burning oil/diesel/gasoline/etc. And that this reckless behavior led to certain damages for which the companies should now be punished both to help pay for consequences and to deter similar behavior by these and other companies in the future. I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this legal theory will hold up in court or if a jury will follow these arguments. But on a personal and moral level it makes sense to me.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Should a few dozen deaths -- as absurd as it is to put the blame squarely on oil producers and not on, for example, Chinese coal-burning plants -- be countered by the enormous number of lives saved because an oil company allowed people to heat their homes during freezing cold winters, to cool them during this heat wave, and enable millions of ambulance rides when people are having heart attacks, etc? I'd say oil, overall, is way net positive in its contributions to society. The fact that this county won't ban oil is evidence that virtually everybody agrees.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      People paid for the positive externalities i.e. heating their homes, driving their cars. Those who didn't pay also didn't share in the benefits, their homes remained cold. Society does not owe the companies anything for the positive externalities, any debt was already settled in cash. But the companies, according to the lawsuit, knowingly and recklessly hid the negative externalities (CO2 emissions and hence global warming) from public scrutiny. These externalities potentially impact everyone, no matter how much oil they actually consumed or how much they benefited from society's oil consumption. The county does not have to ban oil (which it wouldn't be empowered to, anyway) to make that point. You don't have to agree with it, but the arguments you have brought up do not address the complaint that plaintiffs have brought here.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        > People paid for the positive externalities No, they paid for the direct results, i.e. heating oil, gasoline. The externalities that result include having a functional society where millions of people don't die every year due to the weather, where innovative goods (many of which are produced using large amounts of oil) can be produced anywhere in the world and still end up on a store shelf very close to you (or even delivered), and where the majority of people are freed up from having to produce their own food supply. Whereas a few deaths are countable (and the connection from oil production to these specific deaths is highly specious), the positive benefits of oil and electricity are so massive and so embedded and crucial to society that they are literally incalculable. Further, the amount paid is massively reduced due to the incredibly efficient global infrastructure dedicated to producing, refining and transporting oil, thanks (in part) to Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. Instead of paying $60 for a gasoline fillup, imagine the costs of finding oil-producing land, independently drilling for oil and personally refining it into gasoline. The fact that you don't have to do any of that, is the true "externality" that you've benefitted from, but no, you have not paid for.
        tfourb 3y ago
        Every single positive aspect of the production of oil you listed has been paid for by some consumer at the pump or in the store at some point. And by governments/taxes through subsidies for oil companies. Consumers and citizens not only paid for the cost of everything you listed, they also paid for the (substantial) profits of the oil company's shareholders. Yes, some of that value creation also benefited overall economic growth but that is the same for literally every kind of business transaction and economic innovation. Overall, the quality of life for most people at the moment is certainly higher than it would have been if oil has never been developed as a natural resource. But the risk of unmitigated climate change (which largely is due to humanity's consumption of fossil fuels) is that this equation will shift in the coming years and the use of oil, coal, etc. will turn out to have had a net negative impact on human quality of life.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
revelio 3y ago
Well documented? This claim about extreme weather gets repeated and echoed by people who assume that it must be true because they keep hearing it, so they don't check. But it's not actually true. There's a summary paper here that explores the data and shows this to be true: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-02... The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events There are other indicators you could use but they also don't show any crisis of extreme weather, often the opposite. Examples: - Wildfire burn acreage is drastically down over the past 100 years. - Hurricanes are in decline, both in frequency and energy. - Rainfall is also down slightly. You can google those claims to find them if you like because the datasets are all public, except maybe the third which is a bit obscure so I'll give it here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169423003281 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... the small- and medium-size precipitation systems both exhibit significant decreases during 2001–2020 with trends at −1.13 and −2 mm/h per century, respectively. The large-size precipitation systems exhibit nonsignificant increasing trends during 2001–2020.
- tfourb 3y ago
  The study you are linking is written by four authors, three of which are without any climate science credentials (at least two are nuclear physicists). One of those three has been disowned by a former institute he has worked at because of his unfounded claims regarding climate change (or the supposed lack thereof): https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=tr&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?... These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021: "The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely." "The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]" "More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)." "The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)." All from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.

by tfourb 3y ago

bruce511 3y ago

Ah, but do you ascribe blame to the fuel producers? Or the fuel burners? As a liquid it's not a problem. Burning it is the problem. Therefore should it not be the burners who are responsible? Perhaps the county should just ban the burning of fool fuels. If its causing do many local deaths then surely that's the logical first step? Or would that just be political suicide?

tfourb 3y ago
The plaintiffs in this case do not argue that one or another party is responsible for the ultimate emission of CO2. They argue that the oil companies recklessly and with the aim of increasing their profits deceived the public about negative externalities associated with burning oil/diesel/gasoline/etc. And that this reckless behavior led to certain damages for which the companies should now be punished both to help pay for consequences and to deter similar behavior by these and other companies in the future. I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this legal theory will hold up in court or if a jury will follow these arguments. But on a personal and moral level it makes sense to me.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Should a few dozen deaths -- as absurd as it is to put the blame squarely on oil producers and not on, for example, Chinese coal-burning plants -- be countered by the enormous number of lives saved because an oil company allowed people to heat their homes during freezing cold winters, to cool them during this heat wave, and enable millions of ambulance rides when people are having heart attacks, etc? I'd say oil, overall, is way net positive in its contributions to society. The fact that this county won't ban oil is evidence that virtually everybody agrees.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    People paid for the positive externalities i.e. heating their homes, driving their cars. Those who didn't pay also didn't share in the benefits, their homes remained cold. Society does not owe the companies anything for the positive externalities, any debt was already settled in cash. But the companies, according to the lawsuit, knowingly and recklessly hid the negative externalities (CO2 emissions and hence global warming) from public scrutiny. These externalities potentially impact everyone, no matter how much oil they actually consumed or how much they benefited from society's oil consumption. The county does not have to ban oil (which it wouldn't be empowered to, anyway) to make that point. You don't have to agree with it, but the arguments you have brought up do not address the complaint that plaintiffs have brought here.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      > People paid for the positive externalities No, they paid for the direct results, i.e. heating oil, gasoline. The externalities that result include having a functional society where millions of people don't die every year due to the weather, where innovative goods (many of which are produced using large amounts of oil) can be produced anywhere in the world and still end up on a store shelf very close to you (or even delivered), and where the majority of people are freed up from having to produce their own food supply. Whereas a few deaths are countable (and the connection from oil production to these specific deaths is highly specious), the positive benefits of oil and electricity are so massive and so embedded and crucial to society that they are literally incalculable. Further, the amount paid is massively reduced due to the incredibly efficient global infrastructure dedicated to producing, refining and transporting oil, thanks (in part) to Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. Instead of paying $60 for a gasoline fillup, imagine the costs of finding oil-producing land, independently drilling for oil and personally refining it into gasoline. The fact that you don't have to do any of that, is the true "externality" that you've benefitted from, but no, you have not paid for.
      - tfourb 3y ago
        Every single positive aspect of the production of oil you listed has been paid for by some consumer at the pump or in the store at some point. And by governments/taxes through subsidies for oil companies. Consumers and citizens not only paid for the cost of everything you listed, they also paid for the (substantial) profits of the oil company's shareholders. Yes, some of that value creation also benefited overall economic growth but that is the same for literally every kind of business transaction and economic innovation. Overall, the quality of life for most people at the moment is certainly higher than it would have been if oil has never been developed as a natural resource. But the risk of unmitigated climate change (which largely is due to humanity's consumption of fossil fuels) is that this equation will shift in the coming years and the use of oil, coal, etc. will turn out to have had a net negative impact on human quality of life.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

revelio 3y ago

Well documented? This claim about extreme weather gets repeated and echoed by people who assume that it must be true because they keep hearing it, so they don't check. But it's not actually true. There's a summary paper here that explores the data and shows this to be true: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-02... The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events There are other indicators you could use but they also don't show any crisis of extreme weather, often the opposite. Examples: - Wildfire burn acreage is drastically down over the past 100 years. - Hurricanes are in decline, both in frequency and energy. - Rainfall is also down slightly. You can google those claims to find them if you like because the datasets are all public, except maybe the third which is a bit obscure so I'll give it here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169423003281 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... the small- and medium-size precipitation systems both exhibit significant decreases during 2001–2020 with trends at −1.13 and −2 mm/h per century, respectively. The large-size precipitation systems exhibit nonsignificant increasing trends during 2001–2020.

tfourb 3y ago
The study you are linking is written by four authors, three of which are without any climate science credentials (at least two are nuclear physicists). One of those three has been disowned by a former institute he has worked at because of his unfounded claims regarding climate change (or the supposed lack thereof): https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=tr&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?... These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021: "The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely." "The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]" "More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)." "The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)." All from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.