Puerto Rico Files $1 Billion Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies (theverge.com) 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Puerto Rico filed suit against fossil fuel companies this week, alleging that the oil and gas giants have misled the public about climate change and delayed a transition to clean energy. The suit seeks $1 billion in damages to help Puerto Rico defend itself against climate disasters. In a complaint (PDF) filed in San Juan yesterday, Puerto Rico's Department of Justice says that the companies violated trade law by promoting fossil fuels without adequately warning about the dangers. The defendants include ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and other energy companies.
In the complaint, Puerto Rico says it expects to pay billions of dollars in the future to cope with catastrophes made worse by climate change -- including storms like Hurricane Maria, which killed thousands of people in 2017 and triggered monthslong power outages. The suit asks defendants to contribute to a fund that would be used to mitigate the consequences of climate change and pay for measures to strengthen Puerto Rico's infrastructure against future climate-related calamities. After Hurricane Maria devastated the island in 2017, thirty-seven municipalities in Puerto Rico and the capital city of San Juan filed suit against fossil fuel companies, "seeking to hold them accountable for the devastation," notes The Verge.
Last week, Portland's Multnomah County filed a lawsuit against several fossil fuel companies, blaming their emissions for the 2021 heat dome that resulted in the deaths of 69 people.
In the complaint, Puerto Rico says it expects to pay billions of dollars in the future to cope with catastrophes made worse by climate change -- including storms like Hurricane Maria, which killed thousands of people in 2017 and triggered monthslong power outages. The suit asks defendants to contribute to a fund that would be used to mitigate the consequences of climate change and pay for measures to strengthen Puerto Rico's infrastructure against future climate-related calamities. After Hurricane Maria devastated the island in 2017, thirty-seven municipalities in Puerto Rico and the capital city of San Juan filed suit against fossil fuel companies, "seeking to hold them accountable for the devastation," notes The Verge.
Last week, Portland's Multnomah County filed a lawsuit against several fossil fuel companies, blaming their emissions for the 2021 heat dome that resulted in the deaths of 69 people.
Re: (Score:1)
One of the hottest days on record in Puerto Rico was November 12, 1924 at 100F and OH MY GOSH wouldn't you know it, that was also an El Nino year like this one.
History is now irrelevant when it comes to climate change. All that matters with “news” reporting today, is clicks by any means necessary. One hardly needs luck when the audience simply loves eating shit for news. Using clicks for bait, has never been more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh hey, I can find one outlier data point! That totally disproves the millions of other correlated data points that predicted the global rise in average temperatures we're seeing today, as well as the increased storm intensity also predicted!
Never mind that average temperatures have been hotter year-over-year for the last 5 years - nope, I found one edge case data point from 1924 that totally discounts all that data and the trends we can see with our own lying eyes!
Fucking corporate apologist shill.
Everybody in Puerto Rico has an EV and PV panels (Score:2)
You'll be amazed how much the government has already done to fight climate change in Puerto Rico.
Re: Everybody in Puerto Rico has an EV and PV pane (Score:2)
This is also the case in Cuba. Itâ(TM)s more born out of necessity due to irregular supply
Re: (Score:2)
This is also the case in Cuba. Itâ(TM)s more born out of necessity due to irregular supply
It's solar panels. By definition, that is an irregular power supply.
Re:Everybody in Puerto Rico has an EV and PV panel (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they would have if the oil companies hadn't kept their climate change research hidden, and then not lied about it when the information started to become public.
Re: (Score:2)
You write as if nobody could have possibly predicted climate change without the benefit of oil company research. But climate change predictions date back to the 19th century. Modern climate research was widespread by the 1980s with a major intergovernmental panel publishing findings in 1990. Did those findings blow the lid off or cause everyone to scramble to address climate change? No, it did not. It wasn't a lack of scientific knowledge that prevented climate change from being addressed earlier. It was a
Re: (Score:2)
Modern climate research was widespread by the 1980s with a major intergovernmental panel publishing findings in 1990. Did those findings blow the lid off or cause everyone to scramble to address climate change? No, it did not. It wasn't a lack of scientific knowledge that prevented climate change from being addressed earlier. It was a combination of a lack of political will and lack of feasible alternatives to fossil fuels.
It was bribery. We call it lobbying even when corporations do it with big bags of money. We allowed corporations to make campaign contributions, and allowed PACs to spend money on behalf of candidates so that it was possible to get around contribution limits. Now only corporations can engage in meaningful political speech because their voices (again, money) drown out everyone else's. The corporations' lawyers write laws and hand them, fully formed, to congresspeople for passage. It doesn't matter whether yo
Re: (Score:2)
It was a combination of a lack of political will and lack of feasible alternatives to fossil fuels.
Money and propaganda from fossil fuel companies was a big contributor to that lack of political will. It still is today. [opensecrets.org]
What are the standards for a company to be liable for something? Suppose they make a product that is harmful when used as intended. Suppose they know very well that it's harmful when used as intended. And suppose they lie about that and tell people it isn't. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like it meets the definition of civil fraud [cornell.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think lobbying had much to do with it. People don't want to change the way they live. Truly addressing climate change requires (even more so with 1970s technology) requires a radical rethinking of the way people live. Suburban lifestyles with large single family homes and long commutes isn't compatible with low carbon living. Likewise, although 2020s electric cars are pretty compelling, almost nobody wanted 1970s electric cars (which were glorified golf carts). Even today, the lack of political will
Re: (Score:2)
Given how expensive and unreliable electricity is in Puerto Rico now, if everybody had an EV, they'd be in even worse shape than they are now. It's the same problem as making everyone buy EVs in the rest of the US: the infrastructure to support it simply doesn't exist, and won't for decades.
Only, in Puerto Rico, it's magnified a hundredfold by the fact that they can't support current usage.
Are fossil fuels company guilty? (Score:1)
It would be so easy to say yes and go back to sleep.
The answer is a bit more complex. Of course the fossil fuel companies only want to make benefit whatever the consequences on the long term might be. Of that point, yes, they are guilty, like any company focussing on thier own benefit, disregarding the impact of their decision.
But, what about the consumers? It is not that difficult to understand that using massively thir product is dangerous on the long term for eveyone on the planet. Should there be no dem
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the consumers be to blame? And realistically, what say did consumers have in the matter? Have you never heard of Hobson's Choice? If your choices are receive coal-powered electricity or live off the grid; pour gas in your car or be stuck at home; buy fruit wrapped in plastic or go hungry; then those aren't really choices, and you can't hold people responsible for "making" those "decisions".
For thousands of years people lived without gas or cars. Now many people choose to live far from work and further from family, and to drive and fly everywhere. They demand out-of-season strawberries in February for Valentine's Day, bananas year-round, and ocean fish for sale in the middle of the country. They fight and complain when cities encourage reusable grocery bags and ban single-use plastic bags. It's not hard to see that consumers are a part of the problem, and every one of us has an opportunity
Re: (Score:2)
But, what about the consumers? It is not that difficult to understand that using massively thir product is dangerous on the long term for eveyone on the planet.
If it's not that difficult, then why are so many people still denying that thir[sic] product is dangerous on the long term for eveyone[sic] on the planet? Obviously it IS that difficult for some people to understand, and Big Oil has willfully spread a lot of propaganda about oil, which they conclusively knew to be false because we have seen the studies they have done which contradict their marketing. This makes what they did fraud on a scale well beyond any other fraud ever committed.
But, maybe we are in a period where the criminals are legitimate and while people doing things to make the world a better place are going to jail..
Legitimate? Not exactly
Grift (Score:4)
Bet #1: They are hoping for a fat settlement, so that the companies can avoid all the expenses and publicity of defending this suit.
Bet #2: If they actually get a pile of money, they will be unwilling to commit to spending the money exclusively "to help Puerto Rico defend itself against climate disasters". The money will go into the general fund and be spent on pork.
Re:Grift (Score:4, Funny)
Pork? It could be worse for the environment. It could be beef.
Re: (Score:2)
How much environmental impact is there to long pork. Because that's the pork it will be spent on.
Re: (Score:2)
Bet #2: If they actually get a pile of money, they will be unwilling to commit to spending the money exclusively "to help Puerto Rico defend itself against climate disasters". The money will go into the general fund and be spent on pork
Heck no I won't take that bet. My state is so dependent on tobacco money they had to raise taxes when the settlement payouts decreased due to fewer people smoking. They finally managed to close the gap by legalizing marijuana and taxing that.
Another woke money grab (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a lot of uncertainty about co2 causing harm.
Only in the same sense that there is a lot of election mistrust, where people don't believe the votes are counted accurately, and they believe there are lots of bogus votes being cast, because people lied to them about it.. And here you are, helping spread lies.
We have more people but we are healthier longer lived than ever before. Most of this was only possible through the use of fossil fuels.
Of course this is false. For example, we need a strong transportation network to enable commerce that underpins progress, but we could have done that with rail instead of all of this road, and it would have used a lot less energy to produce and opera
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a lot of uncertainty about co2 causing harm.
.... And here you are, helping spread lies.
Co2 levels follow warming they do not lead warming. How do you explain that? You cannot push a rope. If Co2 was the cause it must precede the effect unless you believe in psychic global warming. Co2 increases greening. Data is unequivocal the earth has greened due to higher levels of co2. This is in stark contrast to predictions of desertification.
We have more people but we are healthier longer lived than ever before. Most of this was only possible through the use of fossil fuels.
Of course this is false. ...but we could have done that with rail instead of all of this road.
Population is Up. Life expectancy is up. What is false about that? You have to power the trains. They run on coal or oil or electricity made by coal or oil.
Re: (Score:2)
There ARE always unintended consequences. More people/year have died installing roof-top solar panels than have died building nuclear plants. Of course, a lot more panels were installed, but this was an unintended consequence.
For wind-power there's an increasing problem of what to do with the windmill blades that are no longer serviceable. Last time I checked there was no provision for recycling them, and no decent way of disposing of them. (I think they ended up in landfill, but that required special m
Re: (Score:2)
More people/year have died installing roof-top solar panels than have died building nuclear plants.
Yes, it's stupid to put them on residential roofs before we cover all of the parking lots. However, 99% of those people died because they did something fucking stupid, like not use a roof anchor.
For wind-power there's an increasing problem of what to do with the windmill blades that are no longer serviceable. Last time I checked there was no provision for recycling them
Last time you checked was before 2021 I take it [siemensgamesa.com].
Re: (Score:2)
If I read that link correctly, they only recycle one specific manufacturer/model of windmill blades. But that is one more than I knew about.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Slashdot ID is surprisingly high for a fossil fuel industry shill.
Blame mismanagement on others (Score:2)
Puerto Rico and others are acting like the pointy-hair boss. When your mismanagement and poor planning results in a shit show, blame it on others and try to milk them for millions of dollars. The key pile of bullshit is the phrase "delayed the transition to clean energy". Nothing was stopping anyone from doing so voluntarily. Collectively, people understood that it wasn't in their best interest to do so. Forcing them to do so only pisses people off. And when they realize that they're being conned in th
Does that mean (Score:2)
I can sue drug manufacturers for producing drugs they KNOW harm people?
I can sue anyone for anything I darn well please?
Yup - this is a STUPID lawsuit - should be thrown out!
suing gun manufacturers (Score:2)
Discuss.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"If you don't want the unforeseen consequences of having a salesperson lie to you to secure a sale, don't ever buy anything ever"
missing the point - the tobacco settlement (Score:3, Insightful)
Puerto Rico taxes gasoline at 16 cents per gallon, they have gotten hundreds of millions in tax revenue from fossil fuels over the decades.
They are attempting yet another run at getting a multi-generational tax paid to government ala the big tobacco settlement.
This is the 'entrepreneurial bureaucrats' and 'need a career defining legal victory' lawyers teaming up to advance their own careers.
These lawsuits are to extract money from companies and give it to government to spend. None of this will go to direct
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it a bad thing that they are trying to divert some of those oil profits from shareholder pockets to mitigating climate change for their citizens?
I wouldn't recommend cutting Puerto Rico off, courts tend not to look favourably on retaliation for legal action.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a bad thing that they are trying to divert some of those oil profits from shareholder pockets to mitigating climate change for their citizens?
Apparently you don't know much about the culture of Puerto Rico. It's essentially a third world country propped up by US dollars. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted that if they were ever given independence, it would be a disastrous descent into war and poverty. They'd look like Venezuela in a year.
This has nothing to do with "Justice", and everything to do with the local political class seeing an opportunity to fleece the Anglo at little risk. Even in the very remote chance that they'd win, th
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't recommend cutting Puerto Rico off, courts tend not to look favorably* on retaliation for legal action.
They're suing them for providing oil in the way that oil companies provide oil. And did so after a long time of allowing the oil companies to drill the way oil companies drill. I can't find a logical way to understand what you mean to say here, but I also can't find a logical way to understand this lawsuit either, so maybe you know something that I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a bad thing that they are trying to divert some of those oil profits from shareholder pockets to mitigating climate change for their citizens?
I wouldn't recommend cutting Puerto Rico off, courts tend not to look favourably on retaliation for legal action.
If PR is going to sue the oil companies for damages, their very first response should be to stop making those damages larger. Cutting PR off from oil is not retaliation, it is simple common sense to stop making the damages larger.
Re: (Score:3)
Puerto Rico taxes gasoline at 16 cents per gallon,
Yow, that low???
Gas is about four dollars a gallon in PR; a four percent tax is almost trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies could, as a liability limiting move, stop selling any and all oil based products to Puerto Rico in order to temporarily give the government what it wants, right?
The difference being, you can get rid of tobacco entirely, and nicotine addicts will be pissed, but with decades of groundwork behind us, smokers are too small a minority to cause much trouble.
Stop selling all petrochemical products - gas, oil, coal, most plastics today, without decades to encourage reduced dependency, and within a week there will be literal riots in the streets. Food riots, in all likelihood, since food is transported to where it's needed by . . . hydrocarbon powered cars - and ships. (The
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, if PR is going to sue for damages then the first thing the oil companies should do is stop doing more damage. So cut PR off from all petrochemical products.
Re: (Score:2)
The big tobacco settlement was a net win for humanity, even if some people lost a lot of money. Smoking is way down. Now imagine if we can hold big oil accountable for their evils as well? Extracting money might feel bad to some people, but it's the only effective tool to make corporations pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
having a salesperson lie to you
That's absurd. Nobody bought gasoline because a salesperson tricked them into it.
They might have bought a different brand of gasoline, but that is not the same thing at all.
Come back for more (Score:2)
Celebrate your own demise by modding this comment down too, cuckservatives.
Nobody sucks off corporations harder than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain, using standard definitions of fraud and democratic, how defending fraud is anti-democratic.
Fraud is willful falsehood for profit.
Democracy is governance by The People.
Democracy requires that The People receive facts.
Defending fraud is opposing facts.
Re: (Score:2)
You stupid sot. Do you actually own oil stocks?
The rest of the US (you're probably too ignorant to know that Puerto Rico is *part* of the US), and the rest of the world burning fossil fuels is what this is about.
Re:Sue yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you don't want to be murdered, that's your problem, the murderers are under no obligation to not kill you."
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it's not Oregon doing it. It's the idiots on the Multnomah County Commission. You know, the same morons that operate a "Joint Office on Homelessness" that hands out millions of taxpayer dollars of tarps and tents, only for the City of Portland to end up collecting all that shit and throwing it away when they clean out illegal homeless camps. Which, the homeless folk just go back to the County and get more tents / tarps that will require cleanup.
You know, instead of just using the hundreds of
Re: (Score:1)
"If you don't want to be murdered, that's your problem, the murderers are under no obligation to not kill you."
If you want to quote directly you should quote the entire meaning. Puerto Rico is not fossil fuels free. Their actions aren't one sided for the murderer here. They are literally asking to be murdered as part of the normal way of lie.
Here's a simple test: The government is suing someone for selling something, the *USE* of which causes climate change. Is the purchase of said thing illegal in Puerto Rico? If not they are being hypocritical.
It's like going to a shop, buying an apple, eating the apple, and then
Re: Sue yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are piles of research that the oil companies did well before the 70s that made it clear. They still lie about it.. clearly successfully since you're arguing to protect the giant corporations and think people who don't want to live in their pollution are idiots.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know? If not, by your own standards, your comment wasn't worth posting.
Big Oil has known since the 1960s how bad the impact of their profit making was going to be, based on science from 1896.
As for ways in which big oil has delayed the transition to clean energy, there are an absurd number of examples. My very favorite is the Streetcar Conspiracy [wikipedia.org], my second-favorite is how oil companies stalled the re-introduction of the electric vehicle through battery patent encumbrance [wikipedia.org].
Big Oil has spent billions s [insideclimatenews.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise it's just a terrible bad-faith argument
Good faith is a two way street. Not deserving here.
Re: (Score:2)
So we could replace all oil use with something else in weeks? Wow, that's amazing. /realitysuppressionfield
SO cool.
FUCK.
Re: (Score:2)
Weeks? Almost certainly not.
Could have done it by now, since when we knew it was a problem in the 1960s? Absolutely.
Could have done it by now, even since when it became blatantly obvious to any non-denialist in the 1980s? Still almost certainly. Also, by then the wind and solar tech was actually up to the job.
Could we do it in time to save our societies? Yes, if we took it as seriously as we do a war, and shifted the mass production of fragile consumer bullshit (mostly our shitty cars which are designed to
Re: (Score:2)
So we could replace all oil use with something else in weeks?
No, they can go without. Cold turkey as they say. What, now you are saying they need fossil fuels? Maybe don't bite the hand that feeds them then.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't want others to burn fossil fuels then provide them with an alternative that is better.
Okay, here are some low cost solar panels made in China. They will reduce your CO2 footprint and save you money in the medium to long term.
What's that? You don't want them?
Re: Sue yourself. (Score:2)
Corporations are not responsible for the safety of the products they sell?
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't want CO2 emissions from fossil fuels then don't buy fossil fuels. If you don't want others to burn fossil fuels then provide them with an alternative that is better.
We aren't buying fossil and there is a better alternative, EVs. That's why the entire fossil fuel industry is losing it's collective shit.
Re: (Score:1)
You've been modded troll, but your modders are either idiots or hypocrites or both.
It appears they are using "troll" to flag anything that they disagree with. My guess is they use the "troll" mod since that's the quickest way to remove good karma and land someone in the "timeout box", thus limiting the ability for anyone that disagree with them to express any kind of defense of their position. I looks like a variation to the "heckler's veto" to me, if you lack the mental capacity to defend your position in a civil debate then it falls to just making enough noise to drown out any opposit
Re: (Score:3)
I drive an EV and have solar panels on my roof.
I don't buy fossil fuels.
Yet I still get the CO2 emissions. According to your ridiculous logic, that should be an out-of-bounds condition, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Using the "Troll" modifier should automatically reduce your own reputation, frankly. It's so damned overused.
Re:Sue yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except here, the people who did know, the fossil fuel companies, *vilified* and attacked anyone who came to the same conclusions.
Big Oil/Coal has made decades of outright propaganda that has metastasized into a cult of stupid.
The knew, they lied, they covered it up....and raked in billions doing it.
If Big Oil were smart they'd take the $1 billion 'bill' smiling and admit no wrong doing of course! The actual costs of this are going to be in the trillions. the lint in their pockets is worth more than a billion.
Re: (Score:3)
If they "covered it up," they were utterly unsuccessful.
Re:Sue yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering we're just starting the baby steps of addressing the problem...when we could have had literally 50 years of work already in place.
Yes, yes they were very very very successful.
Re: (Score:1)
We're just in the baby steps of addressing climate change? By what metric?
Re: (Score:3)
the scope of the problem?
The amount of CO2 released by fossil fuels in the last 150 years vs how much we've captured and sequestered?
How long we can power the entire world wide electric grid on storage alone?
Re: Sue yourself. (Score:1)
We are 50 years behind because the likes of GreenPeace that vilified nuclear. ExxonMobil and co invested heavily in nuclear because they are an energy company, not an oil company, only for the government and so-called progressives to completely undermine any investments in it.
Re: (Score:2)
We are 50 years behind because the likes of GreenPeace that vilified nuclear. ExxonMobil and co invested heavily in nuclear because they are an energy company, not an oil company, only for the government and so-called progressives to completely undermine any investments in it.
Oh, those people never went away. The No-Nukes idiots are here too.
Re: (Score:3)
Or...coal is far simpler and cheaper if you ignore the CO2 issues. Which were hidden by, checks notes, the fossil fuel companies.
Nuclear is terrible by every metric except base load CO2 free(ish) power. We'll also need it for a couple decades for that reason until renewable and storage scale.
Re: (Score:1)
Renewable/storage don't scale. We've had renewable and storage for millions of years, there is a reason we are no longer using it at scale. Ask the Dutch.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the shill!
just wow.
Re:Sue yourself. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they "covered it up," they were utterly unsuccessful.
They didn't cover it up but Exxon scientists made uncannily accurate predictions about the effects of fossil fuel use back in 1954. The Fossil fuel industry then spent decades doing the next best thing discrediting climate science with a torrent of disinformation and FUD that is still flooding public discourse today, and if you don't believe me watch one of Trumps recent speeches, sooner or later you'll hear him yell "Drill, baby, drill!!!" over his adoring crowd of cultists at a time when electric vehicles are getting ready to send the ICE to the tech museum.
Re: (Score:3)
They continued increasing oil production and sale for decades after they knew the damage they were doing.
I'd say that coverup was wildly successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Amen, brother. Let's sue the DNC! :D
Re: (Score:2)
And you continued buying them.
This. and it's not just the iPhone or designer clothes or even the airplanes it's like... it's food, housing, water coming through plumbing, all clothing, lights at night, computers, cement...
Basically everything after ~1800 including the excess capacity to have the growth required for investment in R&D is due to the cheap energy provided by fossil fuels. In a sense, to put it in DEI terms, except for like uncontacted people in the Amazon, everyone alive is guilty of massive fossil fuel privilege. No
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, let's shut down the energy companies with stupid lawsuits filed by some of the most incompetent and corrupt governments and then instead of a petroleum based economy we can just use uh, green magic.
But at least the corrupt morons running Puerto Rico will fluff up their budget after fucking their own economy for decades.
I know it is going to be very hard for your MAGA brain to comprehend but there are actually more ways of generating energy than burning sequestered carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the fossil fuel companies engaged in denial and FUD, but I think way too much is made of the early research in the 1970s (that they never followed up on). Fossil fuel companies do not possess and have never possessed any unique knowledge about the climate that is not available to science as a whole. Private companies in the business of making money would not be expected to do much of anything in the way of basic research.
Moreover, even if they had never engaged in climate denialism on the polit
Re: (Score:3)
https://news.harvard.edu/gazet... [harvard.edu]
They knew and with alarming accuracy what was going to happen.
I'll take a 50 year head start over not having it every day and twice on Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the issue is that their analysis wasn't special. The first projections of climate change were made in 1896, almost 100 years before. Other scientists who were not affiliated with any oil company made similarly accurate observations during the same 1970s period. Had Exxon published the study on in Science the very next day, it would have done little other than raise eyebrows and a collective shrug.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard disagree, but hey that's what the internet is for lol
Re: (Score:2)
Except here, the people who did know, the fossil fuel companies, *vilified* and attacked anyone who came to the same conclusions.
Oh no! Not vilified. Anything but that! Please, not vilified!
FFS.
If Big Oil were smart they'd take the $1 billion 'bill' smiling and admit no wrong doing of course!
That wouldn't be smart. Pulling their product from Puerto Rican markets, and telling Puerto Ricans "Hey, your leaders say oil is bad for you. OK. They say they speak for you, so, good luck with the wind and solar. Hasta." would be smart. Vigorously defending themselves in court would be smart.
They're threatening to play a hand. Make them play it. I can assure you, they really don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
About time the oil companies started paying for the damage they are doing. (And all of the lying, cover ups, and bribes.)
Also, why are they still getting government subsidies? (Probably the bribes to politicians.)
Re: (Score:2)
because people aren't voting in 40 more AOCs and 20 more Bernie's.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa! Looks like you reversed reality. Let me fix that for you.
"Except here, the people who did know, the climate alarmists and carbon credit brokers, *vilified* and attacked anyone who came to the same conclusions.
Climate cultists have made decades of outright propaganda that has metastasized into a cult of stupid.
The knew, they lied, they covered it up....and raked in billions doing it.
If climate cultists were smart they'd take the $1 billion 'bill' smiling and admit no wrong doing of course! The actual
Re: (Score:2)
You should share whatever you're smoking cuz that's some wild denialism
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of the same thing as "cancelling" dead white guys or going after P. Diddy 20 years later for partying with groupies.
Also R Kelly, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Peter Nygaard et al. Throw away the key.
In all cases it's dishonest and i wish our system was more... principled, but... there it is.
Rape is never principled, even decades later. You seem unclear on the concept.
Re: (Score:1)
So all those mom and pop gas stations and the people who lose their jobs due to huge, absurd lawsuits in super favorable jurisdictions are just "cost of doing business?"