7 ms·

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

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.
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        Do you consider that constraint more or less real than the constraints imposed by the reality of impending climate apocalypse? ... Why?
        SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I consider it more real because it’s more immediate. If we keep burning oil, we’ll be fine until we’re not, and we can hope someone invents a clever fix. If we stop burning oil, most of the country can’t function today. What would be possible, certainly, is an increasingly harsh sequence of taxes and mandates to force the economy to decarbonize. I think we should do that, but it’s not something that a lawsuit against oil companies could impose.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        What ever happened to 'you do the crime, you do the time'? For 50+ years Exxon et al knowingly did everything they could to prevent a better world. Every year the world gets hotter, and they just keep getting richer. You want to give them a pass because people like and use the stuff that's killing them? We didn't use that logic for tobacco companies, and it worked out. We used it for banks, and it didn't. We use it for military spending, and it's another decision that could kill the planet. The 'too big to fail' argument is a cop-out, just kicking the can. It's astounding that in a world 1.5C above what it should be there are people arguing against holding the people responsible to account by legal means. Just because we use their product to drive life on earth off a cliff faster than we could without them? That makes no sense to me; I don't buy it. Can you explain it to me?
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  But OPs point is that people are not willing to give up modern life for these gains. If you win and the legal system shuts down the modern lifestyle, you are going to have people anti the legal system, not saying 'wow, good on your for removing the oil companies and our way of living'. If you weaponize government against people and their lifestyle choices too much it's possible people break the government instead of the government breaking people's will to live as they currently do.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > But OPs point is that people are not willing to give up modern life for these gains. Because for decades fossil fuel companies used tobacco lobby style tactics to sow doubt about the real cost of that lifestyle. And yet somehow suing them into oblivion 'won't solve anything'? Suing tobacco companies into oblivion did wonders for us. I think it's worth a try. > If you win and the legal system shuts down the modern lifestyle, you are going to have people anti the legal system The modern lifestyle is driving us off a cliff. No one - no one - has argued that suing fossil fuel companies is a one and done complete solution. That's a straw man.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      How is it a strawman to say 'if you win via lawsuits and remove oil companies from modern life, thus driving down the quality of life, you are going to have very heavy pushback from the average person'?
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        > How is it a strawman to say 'if you win via lawsuits and remove oil companies from modern life, thus driving down the quality of life, you are going to have very heavy pushback from the average person'? What I said was: "No one - no one - has argued that suing fossil fuel companies is a one and done complete solution. That's a straw man." Why are you changing the argument, acting as if I said something quite different, and then asking me how the different argument is a strawman? ... That's literally a strawman. You gonna strawman all the way down? And, how do you think the collapse of global ecosystems will affect quality of life? How do you think a billion or two climate refugees will affect quality of life? How are the 83% of extreme weather events which climate change is impacting affecting quality of life? How is the pollution of our air, water, soil and food from oil companies affecting our quality of life? The reason "average people" aren't pushing back even more on all this is directly due to decades of FUD pushed and funded by ... oil companies. And people are arguing that they shouldn't be sued?? Annual fossil fuel subsidies are in the trillions. They're not likely to be sued 'out of existence' any time soon; it would be admitting that our governments have been complicit. Environmental protesters are being treated as terrorists, ffs. If we continue business as usual, then we are in for outcomes far beyond horror.
ch4s3 2y ago
I’m not arguing that they should be sued. I think its pointless, and presupposes an impossible alternative history.
- dataflow 2y ago
  I was agreeing with you. "This" in my comment was referring to what you said people incorrectly assume.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Oh, gotcha I can’t read good.

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.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      Do you consider that constraint more or less real than the constraints imposed by the reality of impending climate apocalypse? ... Why?
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I consider it more real because it’s more immediate. If we keep burning oil, we’ll be fine until we’re not, and we can hope someone invents a clever fix. If we stop burning oil, most of the country can’t function today. What would be possible, certainly, is an increasingly harsh sequence of taxes and mandates to force the economy to decarbonize. I think we should do that, but it’s not something that a lawsuit against oil companies could impose.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        What ever happened to 'you do the crime, you do the time'? For 50+ years Exxon et al knowingly did everything they could to prevent a better world. Every year the world gets hotter, and they just keep getting richer. You want to give them a pass because people like and use the stuff that's killing them? We didn't use that logic for tobacco companies, and it worked out. We used it for banks, and it didn't. We use it for military spending, and it's another decision that could kill the planet. The 'too big to fail' argument is a cop-out, just kicking the can. It's astounding that in a world 1.5C above what it should be there are people arguing against holding the people responsible to account by legal means. Just because we use their product to drive life on earth off a cliff faster than we could without them? That makes no sense to me; I don't buy it. Can you explain it to me?
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
But OPs point is that people are not willing to give up modern life for these gains. If you win and the legal system shuts down the modern lifestyle, you are going to have people anti the legal system, not saying 'wow, good on your for removing the oil companies and our way of living'. If you weaponize government against people and their lifestyle choices too much it's possible people break the government instead of the government breaking people's will to live as they currently do.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > But OPs point is that people are not willing to give up modern life for these gains. Because for decades fossil fuel companies used tobacco lobby style tactics to sow doubt about the real cost of that lifestyle. And yet somehow suing them into oblivion 'won't solve anything'? Suing tobacco companies into oblivion did wonders for us. I think it's worth a try. > If you win and the legal system shuts down the modern lifestyle, you are going to have people anti the legal system The modern lifestyle is driving us off a cliff. No one - no one - has argued that suing fossil fuel companies is a one and done complete solution. That's a straw man.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    How is it a strawman to say 'if you win via lawsuits and remove oil companies from modern life, thus driving down the quality of life, you are going to have very heavy pushback from the average person'?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > How is it a strawman to say 'if you win via lawsuits and remove oil companies from modern life, thus driving down the quality of life, you are going to have very heavy pushback from the average person'? What I said was: "No one - no one - has argued that suing fossil fuel companies is a one and done complete solution. That's a straw man." Why are you changing the argument, acting as if I said something quite different, and then asking me how the different argument is a strawman? ... That's literally a strawman. You gonna strawman all the way down? And, how do you think the collapse of global ecosystems will affect quality of life? How do you think a billion or two climate refugees will affect quality of life? How are the 83% of extreme weather events which climate change is impacting affecting quality of life? How is the pollution of our air, water, soil and food from oil companies affecting our quality of life? The reason "average people" aren't pushing back even more on all this is directly due to decades of FUD pushed and funded by ... oil companies. And people are arguing that they shouldn't be sued?? Annual fossil fuel subsidies are in the trillions. They're not likely to be sued 'out of existence' any time soon; it would be admitting that our governments have been complicit. Environmental protesters are being treated as terrorists, ffs. If we continue business as usual, then we are in for outcomes far beyond horror.

ch4s3 2y ago

I’m not arguing that they should be sued. I think its pointless, and presupposes an impossible alternative history.

dataflow 2y ago
I was agreeing with you. "This" in my comment was referring to what you said people incorrectly assume.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Oh, gotcha I can’t read good.