3 ms·

I think its deeper than that. Its not an oil company issue (I am not implying in anyway that they are the good guys here) What would happen to society if tomorr

I think its deeper than that. Its not an oil company issue (I am not implying in anyway that they are the good guys here) What would happen to society if tomorrow all oil companies just said the risk of global warming is too great, we are all shutting down. Society would collapse. Its not so much they are doing this for profits; which of course they are, but society as a whole very much needs them to continue to do so in order to assure our continued existence in our current form.

badRNG 3y ago
> I think its deeper than that. Its not an oil company issue. > Its not so much they are doing this for profits Funding a massive climate change denial movement in the US for decades, consequently eating up our limited window of time to make the kinds of societal changes to avoid the worst consequences of climate change is very much an "oil company issue" that is done exclusively for profit.
UncleMeat 3y ago
They don't need to all shut down. They can stop interfering with regulation that allows for cleaner power generation, for example.
- jackmott42 3y ago
  There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this problem is so hard. You can't put a filter in place like you can for heavy metals or particulates. There is no solution other than switching to nuclear/solar/wind/etc
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    And those solutions can be enforced by regulation. But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      This assumes that governments will trend towards more stability and the ability to enforce this regulation. The latter depends on alternative energy costs trending downward and competing for viability on a larger scale. None of these things are necessarily true. In fact from the government stability perspective we've been in an unparalleled period of peace and stability that looks incredibly shaky into the near future. Any climate commitments go completely out the window when conflict breaks out between nations.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional. The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.
      - UncleMeat 3y ago
        First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously. Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional". > The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific. > Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things. There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.
14 3y ago
Exactly. You me and everyone who drives or consumes basically anything are part of the problem. You can’t put all the blame on them. However where they are to blame is denying the science to the public for years. Had they invested in clean tech years ago we would be much better off.

badRNG 3y ago

> I think its deeper than that. Its not an oil company issue. > Its not so much they are doing this for profits Funding a massive climate change denial movement in the US for decades, consequently eating up our limited window of time to make the kinds of societal changes to avoid the worst consequences of climate change is very much an "oil company issue" that is done exclusively for profit.

UncleMeat 3y ago

They don't need to all shut down. They can stop interfering with regulation that allows for cleaner power generation, for example.

jackmott42 3y ago
There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this problem is so hard. You can't put a filter in place like you can for heavy metals or particulates. There is no solution other than switching to nuclear/solar/wind/etc
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  And those solutions can be enforced by regulation. But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    This assumes that governments will trend towards more stability and the ability to enforce this regulation. The latter depends on alternative energy costs trending downward and competing for viability on a larger scale. None of these things are necessarily true. In fact from the government stability perspective we've been in an unparalleled period of peace and stability that looks incredibly shaky into the near future. Any climate commitments go completely out the window when conflict breaks out between nations.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional. The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously. Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional". > The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific. > Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things. There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.

14 3y ago

Exactly. You me and everyone who drives or consumes basically anything are part of the problem. You can’t put all the blame on them. However where they are to blame is denying the science to the public for years. Had they invested in clean tech years ago we would be much better off.