California sues oil companies over fraudulent denying of global warming.

[Moonbeam]

California sues five major oil companies for 'decades-long campaign of deception' about climate change

California has sued five of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, alleging that they engaged in a 'decades-long campaign of deception' about climate change and the risks posed by fossil fuels.

www.latimes.com

An appropriate outcome would in my opinion be the seizure of the accumulated wealth of oil company executives as well as long open air prison terms with no AC say in Death Valley. I like to dream.

 

[sandorski]

It's time to take the money away from them so they can't Afford to lie anymore.

 

[Jaskalas]

This feels like the Second Amendment all over again.
We know it is an issue, but we are still afraid of the price of action.
Tackling Oil makes fuel and thus prices / inflation go brrr.

I would rather see us focus on escaping the trap that is Oil, not damaging what we already have. While the two ideas can coincide, it is just as easy to misstep and make everything unnecessarily more expensive.

• Fund renewables.
• Do NOT attack our energy infrastructure.

 

[Moonbeam]

What we need in my opinion is a methodology for keeping psychopaths and sociopaths out of positions of power.

 

[UNCjigga]

Heard something on NPR this week with the author of a new book called “The Parrot and the Igloo”. Basically this guy traces the history of climate denialism and it’s roots back to Big Oil. Was pretty fascinating. I had no idea that anthropogenic climate change was accepted almost as fact between the early 1900s up until the 1960s/70s. And only then did Big Oil get organized—buying off politicians and funding entire institutes devoted to climate denialism. It’s crazy, because just as the science was getting good enough for us to actually do something about the problem, the political and economic will to do anything was destroyed.

 

[Greenman]

So what happens if California wins? They get a boat load of money and the oil company's increase prices and put a warning label on their products?
Is the end goal to drive fuel prices so high that only wealthy people can afford air conditioning and a car?

Clearly they won't operate at a loss, so whatever they pay out is going to be tacked on to the price of their products, which will affect the price of every other product in the nation. I guess the question is, can they afford to win?

 

[brycejones]

So what happens if California wins? They get a boat load of money and the oil company's increase prices and put a warning label on their products?
Is the end goal to drive fuel prices so high that only wealthy people can afford air conditioning and a car?

Clearly they won't operate at a loss, so whatever they pay out is going to be tacked on to the price of their products, which will affect the price of every other product in the nation. I guess the question is, can they afford to win?

Nothing says GOP stooge like saying "companies shouldn't be held responsible for their actions"

 

[sandorski]

So what happens if California wins? They get a boat load of money and the oil company's increase prices and put a warning label on their products?
Is the end goal to drive fuel prices so high that only wealthy people can afford air conditioning and a car?

Clearly they won't operate at a loss, so whatever they pay out is going to be tacked on to the price of their products, which will affect the price of every other product in the nation. I guess the question is, can they afford to win?

Air Conditioning would not be affected.

 

[sandorski]

Because the Fossil Fuel Market/Industry needs to be phased out, Nationalizing the Industry is a good idea. Essentially, by Law, Government takes control of the Industry, Shareholders are paid off over Time so they recoup their Share value, aka are bought/paid out. Non-Fuel components of the Industry would be spun off into their own Private/Publicly Traded/non-Nationalized companies. The Nationalized companies would continue operating by supplying the current Demand in the Market, but at least part of that Profit would go toward decreasing the Demand. Over time those companies would be scaled down with no/little resistance as needed.

 

[kt]

So what happens if California wins? They get a boat load of money and the oil company's increase prices and put a warning label on their products?
Is the end goal to drive fuel prices so high that only wealthy people can afford air conditioning and a car?

Clearly they won't operate at a loss, so whatever they pay out is going to be tacked on to the price of their products, which will affect the price of every other product in the nation. I guess the question is, can they afford to win?

LOL. Even if they cut the price at the pump in half right now, I highly doubt they would operate at a loss.

 

[Moonbeam]

So what happens if California wins? They get a boat load of money and the oil company's increase prices and put a warning label on their products?
Is the end goal to drive fuel prices so high that only wealthy people can afford air conditioning and a car?

Clearly they won't operate at a loss, so whatever they pay out is going to be tacked on to the price of their products, which will affect the price of every other product in the nation. I guess the question is, can they afford to win?

Perhaps rather than trying to argue against your point I should agree. Every thief that has broken into your work truck and stolen your tools should never be brought to justice because the court cost and the jail time if convicted will fall on every tax payer's head. Let's not worry about the fact that your tools are your livelihood or that the cost of climate denial is mass extinction. If we do nothing the carrion eaters of the world are going to have a heyday. That's why I proposed that those who favor profit over the lives of future children should be expunged from having influence one way or another. We need a system that spots and removes psychopaths via objective scientific means. They have infested corporations and politics.

 

[Greenman]

Perhaps rather than trying to argue against your point I should agree. Every thief that has broken into your work truck and stolen your tools should never be brought to justice because the court cost and the jail time if convicted will fall on every tax payer's head. Let's not worry about the fact that your tools are your livelihood or that the cost of climate denial is mass extinction. If we do nothing the carrion eaters of the world are going to have a heyday. That's why I proposed that those who favor profit over the lives of future children should be expunged from having influence one way or another. We need a system that spots and removes psychopaths via objective scientific means. They have infested corporations and politics.

You're mistaking commerce for burglary. Everyone with an IQ over 85 understands that burning billions of barrels of petroleum distillates isn't going to end well. It's been known for decades. The oil company's are no more to blame than the consumers, but that's only an aside to my point. We can fine the oil company's a trillion dollars, but that money isn't going to appear out of thin air, it's going to come from the proceeds of selling oil and it's byproducts. If that means fuel or heating oil have to sell for twenty bucks a gallon then that's what it will sell for.

I'm no fan of Exxon or Shell, but the idea that there won't be vast and unpleasant repercussions should California win is absurd. It would be far more sensible to add a three dollar a gallon federal tax to fuel and use that money to fund renewable energy sources and environmental clean up. The one absolutely certain fact is that if we want the oil company's to pay billions, they're going to charge us billions.

 

[Amused]

You're mistaking commerce for burglary. Everyone with an IQ over 85 understands that burning billions of barrels of petroleum distillates isn't going to end well. It's been known for decades. The oil company's are no more to blame than the consumers, but that's only an aside to my point. We can fine the oil company's a trillion dollars, but that money isn't going to appear out of thin air, it's going to come from the proceeds of selling oil and it's byproducts. If that means fuel or heating oil have to sell for twenty bucks a gallon then that's what it will sell for.

I'm no fan of Exxon or Shell, but the idea that there won't be vast and unpleasant repercussions should California win is absurd. It would be far more sensible to add a three dollar a gallon federal tax to fuel and use that money to fund renewable energy sources and environmental clean up. The one absolutely certain fact is that if we want the oil company's to pay billions, they're going to charge us billions.

Was the tobacco industry rightfully found guilty of spreading false advertising and misinformation to create the appearance of "controversy" over the health risks of tobacco use?

How is the energy industry ANY less liable for creating an exact duplicate of the tobacco misinformation campaign at the expense of public health?

 

[dank69]

First I'll say these lawsuits will result in $20/gal so when I say tax it at $3/gal people won't notice that runs contrary to my statements about making so only rich people can afford gas.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're mistaking commerce for burglary. Everyone with an IQ over 85 understands that burning billions of barrels of petroleum distillates isn't going to end well. It's been known for decades. The oil company's are no more to blame than the consumers, but that's only an aside to my point. We can fine the oil company's a trillion dollars, but that money isn't going to appear out of thin air, it's going to come from the proceeds of selling oil and it's byproducts. If that means fuel or heating oil have to sell for twenty bucks a gallon then that's what it will sell for.

I'm no fan of Exxon or Shell, but the idea that there won't be vast and unpleasant repercussions should California win is absurd. It would be far more sensible to add a three dollar a gallon federal tax to fuel and use that money to fund renewable energy sources and environmental clean up. The one absolutely certain fact is that if we want the oil company's to pay billions, they're going to charge us billions.

I am suggesting that oil executives be stripped of their jobs and accumulated wealth with the proceeds allocated to renewable energy sources. The effort to deny climate change is criminal. Furthermore action needs to be taken, in my opinion, to keep such psychopaths out of corporation and political power structures. Who they are is obvious to sane people.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The tingling in my balls says $6 a gallon inbound...

 

[desy]

California has profited as an oil and gas producing State and still is, nothing is thrust upon them.
California drive culture, nobody walks in LA, so hypocritical.
Our modern civilization would not exist without the last 150 years of turning fossil fuels into GDP, I also know they have manipulated the message but it still doesn't change the fact as consumers we want more, and but for the blip of Covid we consume more every year.
Lets look at who the real problem is and its us, we aren't lead down the path, we willing demand more cheap garbage from poor countries, more fresh strawberries in the middle of winter, larger trucks for home depot runs, cheaper air faire so we can take hot vacations. . . .

Wholehearted agree that our best outcome is to free ourselves from non renewable everythings! If only we had the integrity to follow through on curbing our desire for always more.

 

[HomerJS]

You're mistaking commerce for burglary. Everyone with an IQ over 85 understands that burning billions of barrels of petroleum distillates isn't going to end well. It's been known for decades. The oil company's are no more to blame than the consumers, but that's only an aside to my point. We can fine the oil company's a trillion dollars, but that money isn't going to appear out of thin air, it's going to come from the proceeds of selling oil and it's byproducts. If that means fuel or heating oil have to sell for twenty bucks a gallon then that's what it will sell for.

I'm no fan of Exxon or Shell, but the idea that there won't be vast and unpleasant repercussions should California win is absurd. It would be far more sensible to add a three dollar a gallon federal tax to fuel and use that money to fund renewable energy sources and environmental clean up. The one absolutely certain fact is that if we want the oil company's to pay billions, they're going to charge us billions.

In the context of "drill baby drill" methinks your statement is flawed.

 

[Greenman]

In the context of "drill baby drill" methinks your statement is flawed.

Are you suggesting that someone doesn't know about air pollution? Or that virtually every American family doesn't have a car? Or that most of them don't have air conditioning? Or that we don't just love to fly around the world in monster jets gobbling down fuel by the ton?

Trying to blame all of this on the oil company's is a joke. They didn't force us to use oil to build a first world nation, we begged them for it. We've known for decades that it was a bad idea, but none of us are willing to give up all of our nice stuff to help solve the problem.
Now California wants to pretend that those evil oil company's tricked us into thinking it was a safe and logical thing to do because it's an easy way to snag a few billion dollars. Maybe they'll use the money to finish the medium speed train that goes from nowhere to nowhere. I'm sure that will help solve the problem.

 

[sandorski]

Are you suggesting that someone doesn't know about air pollution? Or that virtually every American family doesn't have a car? Or that most of them don't have air conditioning? Or that we don't just love to fly around the world in monster jets gobbling down fuel by the ton?

Trying to blame all of this on the oil company's is a joke. They didn't force us to use oil to build a first world nation, we begged them for it. We've known for decades that it was a bad idea, but none of us are willing to give up all of our nice stuff to help solve the problem.
Now California wants to pretend that those evil oil company's tricked us into thinking it was a safe and logical thing to do because it's an easy way to snag a few billion dollars. Maybe they'll use the money to finish the medium speed train that goes from nowhere to nowhere. I'm sure that will help solve the problem.

They knew the truth, hid it, then stated Lies about it. Tobacco companies also had Economic benefit for many. Both became villains due to their own informed choices.

 

[brycejones]

Are you suggesting that someone doesn't know about air pollution? Or that virtually every American family doesn't have a car? Or that most of them don't have air conditioning? Or that we don't just love to fly around the world in monster jets gobbling down fuel by the ton?

Trying to blame all of this on the oil company's is a joke. They didn't force us to use oil to build a first world nation, we begged them for it. We've known for decades that it was a bad idea, but none of us are willing to give up all of our nice stuff to help solve the problem.
Now California wants to pretend that those evil oil company's tricked us into thinking it was a safe and logical thing to do because it's an easy way to snag a few billion dollars. Maybe they'll use the money to finish the medium speed train that goes from nowhere to nowhere. I'm sure that will help solve the problem.

How to tell us you don’t understand the issues involved without saying it.

 

[Greenman]

They knew the truth, hid it, then stated Lies about it. Tobacco companies also had Economic benefit for many. Both became villains due to their own informed choices.

I've never once seen any information from an oil company claiming that burning oil didn't cause pollution.

 

[IronWing]

Hitting the oil companies for the damages and passing those costs onto the consumers of oil is the way it should work. Start internalizing the external costs of fossils fuels and cheap gas isn't so cheap.

 

[Brainonska511]

Because the Fossil Fuel Market/Industry needs to be phased out, Nationalizing the Industry is a good idea. Essentially, by Law, Government takes control of the Industry, Shareholders are paid off over Time so they recoup their Share value, aka are bought/paid out. Non-Fuel components of the Industry would be spun off into their own Private/Publicly Traded/non-Nationalized companies. The Nationalized companies would continue operating by supplying the current Demand in the Market, but at least part of that Profit would go toward decreasing the Demand. Over time those companies would be scaled down with no/little resistance as needed.

Nationalizing has to be one of the worst ways to phase out fossil fuels. You're going to create what amounts to a new government jobs and revenue program, that gets every political incentive to keep it active.

 

[brycejones]

I've never once seen any information from an oil company claiming that burning oil didn't cause pollution.

Translation:

I've never once actually looked into what the oil companies claimed in regards to global warming.