3 ms·

> One of the ideas that came to us, it wasn't our idea, was that a private corporation nor even a public corporation had sued a fossil fuel company for hiding s

> One of the ideas that came to us, it wasn't our idea, was that a private corporation nor even a public corporation had sued a fossil fuel company for hiding science and preventing society from taking action on climate. I never understood the point of suing oil companies. (Edit: I mean insofar as "fixing the climate" goes. If the goal is something else, ignore my comment.) So let's say they don't even show up to court, and just lose by default, and the companies get destroyed. OK, congratulations... now what? Consumers aren't going to go "oh my gosh I'm such a fool... if Exxon hadn't fooled me about global warming I would've gone grocery shopping with my carriage horse." They're still going to drive everywhere like they were yesterday, they're going to want bottom-of-the-barrel (pardon the pun) oil prices, and they're going to vote for the leaders that give them that. Whether they're in denial or actively outraged at everyone else for unsustainable living, it's not like most people have enough disposable income, free time, or a bright outlook on the future to invest in more costly methods of living. People want low oil prices, that's our way of life. The oil companies are there because of consumer demand. How does suing them greedy oil companies address that?

ch4s3 2y ago
I think people incorrectly assume that if it had been 100% clear in 1980 that we were on a course to dramatically change the global climate that we could or would have made key technological advances earlier. I personally doubt this and think that there were a lot of unknowns. There has been plenty of investment and research into batteries and photovoltaics for decades and they both needed advances in other areas to get to where they are today. A lot of what makes PV so useful now relies on technology developed for microchips. If somehow we had managed to figure out climate models before we stopped building nuclear plants, then maybe we could have ended up on a different trajectory but it just seems so unlikely.
- dataflow 2y ago
  I'd be maybe willing to buy this if we were still in the '80s, but this is 40 years later. I'm not sure what the point of suing them now is, at least as far as actually attacking climate change goes. For justice-serving purposes, OK, sue them out of existence. But how is that going to fix the climate?
  - linkerdoo 2y ago
    [dead]
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > how is that going to fix the climate? Immediate reduction in emissions, preservation of ecosystems, boost to renewable energy, setting a good legal precedent, funding for climate restoration (not just monies recovered from murderous executives, but also a huge windfall from not paying them massive subsidies any longer). Not to mention other benefits, like better public health and awareness. Wild how this question was framed like some sort of gotcha; as if all of this is in any way radical and not a matter of necessity at this point.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      How would suing ExxonMobil lead to an immediate reduction in emissions or preservation of ecosystems? This isn't a gotcha, I genuinely don't understand. Is your expectation that a judge would rule producing too much fossil fuel is illegal?
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        > How would suing ExxonMobil lead to an immediate reduction in emissions or preservation of ecosystems? ... Did you read my comment? Did you read the original question? I'm really not sure where you got lost. Yes, if "greedy oil companies" were sued "out of existence" there would be an immediate reduction in emissions. If you want to start a different question that limits the scenario to ExxonMobil and a realistic judge in the actual system that we have, then go ahead.
        SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I’m not trying to limit the scenario, but the large and highly inflexible demand for oil is a real constraint. If greedy oil companies disappeared tomorrow, the public would demand (and the government would provide) a massive effort to restart their wells and resume production ASAP.

ch4s3 2y ago

I think people incorrectly assume that if it had been 100% clear in 1980 that we were on a course to dramatically change the global climate that we could or would have made key technological advances earlier. I personally doubt this and think that there were a lot of unknowns. There has been plenty of investment and research into batteries and photovoltaics for decades and they both needed advances in other areas to get to where they are today. A lot of what makes PV so useful now relies on technology developed for microchips. If somehow we had managed to figure out climate models before we stopped building nuclear plants, then maybe we could have ended up on a different trajectory but it just seems so unlikely.

dataflow 2y ago
I'd be maybe willing to buy this if we were still in the '80s, but this is 40 years later. I'm not sure what the point of suing them now is, at least as far as actually attacking climate change goes. For justice-serving purposes, OK, sue them out of existence. But how is that going to fix the climate?
- linkerdoo 2y ago
  [dead]
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > how is that going to fix the climate? Immediate reduction in emissions, preservation of ecosystems, boost to renewable energy, setting a good legal precedent, funding for climate restoration (not just monies recovered from murderous executives, but also a huge windfall from not paying them massive subsidies any longer). Not to mention other benefits, like better public health and awareness. Wild how this question was framed like some sort of gotcha; as if all of this is in any way radical and not a matter of necessity at this point.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    How would suing ExxonMobil lead to an immediate reduction in emissions or preservation of ecosystems? This isn't a gotcha, I genuinely don't understand. Is your expectation that a judge would rule producing too much fossil fuel is illegal?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > How would suing ExxonMobil lead to an immediate reduction in emissions or preservation of ecosystems? ... Did you read my comment? Did you read the original question? I'm really not sure where you got lost. Yes, if "greedy oil companies" were sued "out of existence" there would be an immediate reduction in emissions. If you want to start a different question that limits the scenario to ExxonMobil and a realistic judge in the actual system that we have, then go ahead.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I’m not trying to limit the scenario, but the large and highly inflexible demand for oil is a real constraint. If greedy oil companies disappeared tomorrow, the public would demand (and the government would provide) a massive effort to restart their wells and resume production ASAP.