Climate Change - Redux

[carpedm9587]

I just learned of this newsworthy event. In a nutshell, the oil companies (several of them) are acknowledging that a) climate change is real, b) it is significantly being impacted by the burning of fossil fuels, c) they are not responsible and cannot be sued for it.

I am mostly curious about a) and b). Given previous discussions in which all sorts of doubt was expressed about whether climate change was actually happening, whether humans were significantly responsible, and even whether it is a "bad thing," I'd be curious to know how this news item is received.

[Jedidiah]

I just learned of this newsworthy event. In a nutshell, the oil companies (several of them) are acknowledging that a) climate change is real, b) it is significantly being impacted by the burning of fossil fuels, c) they are not responsible and cannot be sued for it.

I am mostly curious about a) and b). Given previous discussions in which all sorts of doubt was expressed about whether climate change was actually happening, whether humans were significantly responsible, and even whether it is a "bad thing," I'd be curious to know how this news item is received.

I am inclined to believe re c) that the consumers are solely responsible. They are the ones making decisions.

[carpedm9587]

I am inclined to believe re c) that the consumers are solely responsible. They are the ones making decisions.

I'm not sure I would go that far. As with all industries trying to protect their business model, the fossil fuels industry has obfuscated data, and intentionally thrown up a smokescreen about climate change for decades - making it that much harder to get any headway and delaying dealing with the problem. Just like the tobacco industry and the lead industry, they own some responsibility for the results of that disinformation, IMO. The sugar industry will likely be next.

When $ take precedence over doing the right thing...there is plenty of blame to be allocated. People, likewise, own their choices.

[Starlight]

Seems to me like it's going to be the tobacco industry all over again.

The emails gradually leaking out have shown that upper-management in these oil firms knew for decades about climate change, and choose a disinformation campaign to mislead the public.

[Teallaura]

Legal backside coverage. Hard to say how much we should read into it at this point. It may just be that the legal team is convinced fighting the ability to sue is more effective than fighting the particulars. concessions like that aren't particularly meaningful - same reason that plea bargained guilty pleas aren't assurances of guilt.

Or not - dunno, it's too early to say.

[shunyadragon]

Seems to me like it's going to be the tobacco industry all over again.

The emails gradually leaking out have shown that upper-management in these oil firms knew for decades about climate change, and choose a disinformation campaign to mislead the public.

I do not believe it will go the way of the tobacco industry, because of the long history and intimate complicated relationship between industry, government and the citizens to determine the responsibility. Consumption is the force responsible for global warming.

[firstfloor]

I am inclined to believe re c) that the consumers are solely responsible. They are the ones making decisions.

But are your decisions well informed with correct facts? Are some people deliberately muddying the waters and encouraging you to make poor decisions on very important matters? And are they doing so for their personal enrichment?

[demi-conservative]

I just learned of this newsworthy event. In a nutshell, the oil companies (several of them) are acknowledging that a) climate change is real, b) it is significantly being impacted by the burning of fossil fuels, c) they are not responsible and cannot be sued for it.

I am mostly curious about a) and b). Given previous discussions in which all sorts of doubt was expressed about whether climate change was actually happening, whether humans were significantly responsible, and even whether it is a "bad thing," I'd be curious to know how this news item is received.

Newsworthy event is if they can prove harm of global warming.

Since no consensus on what harm global warming will do, fat chance there can be award of damages now, or for some time to come.

[demi-conservative]

But are your decisions well informed with correct facts? Are some people deliberately muddying the waters and encouraging you to make poor decisions on very important matters? And are they doing so for their personal enrichment?

Al Gore!

[Teallaura]

Newsworthy event is if they can prove harm of global warming.

Since no consensus on what harm global warming will do, fat chance there can be award of damages now, or for some time to come.

That's actually a valid point. Hmm, it's even a good point and might explain the lawyer's reasoning - conceding an event does nothing if injury can't be shown.

[demi-conservative]

That's actually a valid point. Hmm, it's even a good point

Tremendous!

and might explain the lawyer's reasoning - conceding an event does nothing if injury can't be shown.

Demi read that

What is interesting about the amended complaint (and notable for investors in the defendant firms) is why it claims that the companies should be held responsible for the Cities' climate change abatement costs. Specifically, it does not take issue with the fact that the companies produced greenhouse gas emissions, which they of course did in only limited quantities as extractors rather than combustors (defined here as those who cause the combustion) of fossil fuels. Rather, it faults the companies for extracting the fossil fuels that were ultimately combusted by other entities. In doing so, they claim, they "assisted in the creation of, contributed to, and/or maintained and continue to cause, create, assist in the creation of, contribute to and/or maintain global warming-induced sea level rise, a public nuisance [under federal common law] in Oakland."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/416...ioxide-big-oil

'You made sea levels rise!!!!!'

Low energy lawsuit, sad!

[shunyadragon]

Al Gore!

Al Gore has never been accepted by scientists for an argument for global warming. Why do you continually bring up this Red Herring?

[demi-conservative]

Al Gore has never been accepted by scientists for an argument for global warming. Why do you continually bring up this Red Herring?

Why do you libs keep denying significance of Al Gore? Cos he became embarassment, sad!

[shunyadragon]

Why do you libs keep denying significance of Al Gore? Cos he became embarassment, sad!

I speak from the perspective of science and not a lib agenda.

Al Gore's book has never been significant as far as scientists are concerned. Now in the layman's world where education, agendas and beliefs are so variable I could not remotely comment on how different layman consider Al Gore's book.

Concerning 'global warming' or 'climate change' I perfectly willing to dialogue specifically from the science perspective and leave layman experts out of it.

[demi-conservative]

speak from the perspective of science and not a lib agenda.

Al Gore's book has never been significant as far as scientists are concerned. Now in the layman's world where education, agendas and beliefs are so variable I could not remotely comment on how different layman consider Al Gore's book.

Concerning 'global warming' or 'climate change' I perfectly willing to dialogue specifically from the science perspective and leave layman experts out of it.

FF, also me, was talking about influencers who mislead. Not all is about science and scientists everytime!