Emerging legislation would shield polluters from liability for climate change
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Sypher the 297th
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
When the toll comes due for decades of climate inaction, its a pity that many of the perpetrators like Chuck Grassley will have long since been put in the ground through natural causes after a long career of criminality. It will be important at some point in the future to hold the surviving men and women from these corporations and government to account by trying them for public corruption, publicly hanging them, and stripping their heirs of any and all assets. Maybe the criminals can be held at hard labor in a coal mine while awaiting trial.
It wouldn't have taken dramatic effort if this had been taken seriously in the first place. And these corporations new what they were doing. Instead they pushed nonsense like "clean coal." Now the remedies will have to be draconian just to ameliorate the severest consequences. There's no hope at all of avoiding the majority of the fallout now.
It wouldn't have taken dramatic effort if this had been taken seriously in the first place. And these corporations new what they were doing. Instead they pushed nonsense like "clean coal." Now the remedies will have to be draconian just to ameliorate the severest consequences. There's no hope at all of avoiding the majority of the fallout now.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
But the problem is oil companies knew for 50 years the path their business was putting the planet on and actively worked to keep us on that path regardless of the harms for the sake of profit. So the only way to punish those bad actors is to hold them financially accountable for the foreseeable results of their decisions.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
To be fair, not necessarily. They definitely believe they might be convicted of environmental harms, but that doesn't require actual guilt.
They're recognizing the rest of the world believes and they're insulating themselves from the majority while they have the abusive power to do so.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
i'd be ok with this. simply start paying up and start mitigating, skipping courts and the endless appeals and money going to court stuff instead of climate stuff.
spread the word every chance you get. maybe it will catch fire (so to speak...).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
One of the fundamental reasons we want a society founded on just laws that allow for reasonable retribution is that not having such laws will likely lead to other solutions. For example:
Republicans would be well advised to consider what alternatives the populace may employ should the GOP continue down its current path.
Republicans would be well advised to consider what alternatives the populace may employ should the GOP continue down its current path.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
His argument is literally just:
"I think we should improve society somewhat"
"And yet you participate in society?? I am very smart."
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Literally the only ones causing the polarization are republicans. Why are you never going to them and telling them to reach out?
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Oh, I saw it coming. They'll do the same for AI if insurers decide they won't pay out claims if AI was used in the business decision.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I would like to congratulate the Republican Party for finally advancing through the five stages of grief:
1. Denial
2. Anger <--- Republican Party is now here
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
1. Denial
2. Anger <--- Republican Party is now here
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
I mean at that point pretty much the only people at the gallows will be secretaries and janitors, as all the big shots will have cashed their checks long ago and their heirs moved away, probably to China or somewhere where they can continue to be shielded from further consequences (and at that point can you even really call it justice?). That or their heirs will publicly disown their ancestors and commit their own inheritance to climate change causes. After all, who knows what the future holds.
We should also remember that the Republicans have their own violent revenge fantasies and are in a much better position to carry them out. They dont even have to lead us to the guillotine either, all they have to do is have ICE gather us up in a 'roundup', keep us in some blacksite for weeks on end, drain our phone batteries to nothing, and then release us randomly in the middle of the night 4 states over 50 miles from the nearest town and let us die of exposure on the side of the highway.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
They've been stuck there since at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Last edited:
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It's cool. Unless we all get wiped out collectively in a 15 minute ICBM exchange some time in the near future, our kids can always collectively sue the "Southern United Confederacy of Kilead" in The Hague in 2050 for damages, freezing all of their national assets held anywhere else on the globe...
...if there will be any to freeze in the first place, that is!
(the assets abroad due to the S.U.C.K. being totally broke)
...if there will be any to freeze in the first place, that is!
(the assets abroad due to the S.U.C.K. being totally broke)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Don't forget the cult members who started a war in the Middle East to try and bring about the End Times and hasten Jesus' return.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Lets just finish melting the poles as quickly as possible and end the debate.
Let Florida slowly disappear under the waves, all the while begging for a protective sea-wall to keep out the inrush of water.
WHY = Because only then will people learn if "global warming" was a hoax or not.
(And in spite of whatever the result, this planet will still be more livable than Mars.)
Let Florida slowly disappear under the waves, all the while begging for a protective sea-wall to keep out the inrush of water.
WHY = Because only then will people learn if "global warming" was a hoax or not.
(And in spite of whatever the result, this planet will still be more livable than Mars.)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
-Francis M Wilhoit
-Francis M Wilhoit
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
If the US does not hold its companies accountable for climate damage while other countries do, it creates an incentive for those companies to move to the US. Job creation for those willing to sell out future generations.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Until said exports are tariffed making it hard to compete overseas. US companies would be saddled with both the high cost of fossil fuels and foreign tariffs.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
This is not an issue that is polarized because of honest disagreement.
It is a long-term effect whose nature, severity, and priority are neither debated nor debatable if one is being intellectually honest and discussing it in good faith.
Yeah, that's a cute little thought-terminating cliche that is flawed only by being a touch too obvious in its appeal to apathy, inertia, and the timeless logic of "and yet you participate in society! curious"
But let's get fucking real, shall we? It's not actually possible to opt out of fossil energy. We are not stopping fossil fuel extraction tomorrow. There is currently no feasible way for any of us to divest our spending or our lives from fossil fuels, and that is by design and intent. That's the status quo ante. But we are not actually obligated to deny that climate mitigation is the most pressing priority of this age just because we can't do anything about it personally. Any argument that we must is an argument that solely benefits those who got us into this situation and those who have exacerbated our dependence on fossil energy when opportunities existed to relieve it. And those opportunities existed. Legislators and policymakers igored them, at the behest of lobbyists and executives and right-wing demagogues whose short-term, narrow interests were served by not just failing to mitigate climate change but enmeshing every economic activity ever more with fossil energy and making the proudly excessive demand for energy a mark of tribal allegiance.
By advancing disingenuous, bad-faith arguments that transparently support the status quo ante, you are doing precisely the opposite, and either you are doing so knowingly and for the most cynical of reasons, or you are a thinker so unsophisticated that you took an embarrassingly trite set of rhetorical tricks hook, line, and sinker.
I don't want to grab money from the past. I want to grab money from right fucking now, because the reason we are so dependent on fossil fuel, the reason global warming is has gotten as bad as it has, and the reason that climate mitigation is at this point effectively impossible is the same reason, to wit: in 1980, fossil fuel companies knew global warming was a civilizational threat in general and an existential threat to their businesses, and decided that it was in their narrow, short-term best interest to use lobbying, PR, messaging, and propaganda to interfere with society doing anything in the next 50-100 years to mitigate climate change by reducing or offsetting carbon emissons in any meaningful way. That's deliberate, premeditated fraud. And it was prosecuted in public, by known actors with known ties to the fossil fuel industry. Any and every company has realized profit related to the extraction, refinining, distribution, and use of fossil fuels are the beneficiaries of that fraud. That's a lot of profit and a lot of individuals who have been enriched by it. And I think we should grab it and use it to undo some of the damage, and criminally prosecute those responsible. I can do that while also productively moving forward to reduce that dependence. I see them as one and the same.
Oh, and by the way, one of the ways they've been doing that is by actively using bots and paid shills to seed social media and online discourse with facile, seemingly reasonable arguments in favor of apathy, stasis, denial, and impunity, so don't think your bad faith isn't as obvious as a fart in church.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
They've also built 3x more green energy power (solar, wind, etc) than they have fossil fuel power plants in the last 10 years so how about backing off on that? Also the West still has caused the vast majority of all the CO2 pollution now in the atmosphere.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I am reminded of one of the Gundam series where the region that was the US is a wasteland petro-state who refused to adopt clean, self-sustainable technologies that allowed for the development of giant mechs.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I prefer "republicants", as in cannot bring themselves to do a single, solitary, honorable thing that serves society as a whole... or anything really, other than themselves and their cronies.
I don't have any special love for dems, but the moral disparity between these groups is now mind-boggling. All the more so because one group believes "morals" are derived from how many times you pay lip service to Christian or "Christian-like" principles, despite said group being the most un-Christ-like in modern history.
Going and listening to your pastor one hour a week (assuming they even do that), while then undermining the pillars of society, ignoring the poor, persecuting those who don't fit your definition of "American", and trashing the planet the other six days... ain't gonna cut it. That's like saying I'm a medical doctor M-F (as I intentionally try to harm people... for sport I guess), because I read a couple WebMD and Mayo Clinic articles on weekends.
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You’re deluding yourself if you think this is where we are headed. I bet you, right this minute, GOP still has plenty of support from their base. This is what happens when politics becomes a “my team” sport.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I hope when the R's are kicked out, they have the balls to federally sue the oil companies whose own research showed this would happen back in the 70's (or whenever it was).
And programs should be put in place to lower our dependence on one energy source for anything important, like people going to work or transporting goods long distances (high speed railroads seem an obvious option... start blasting through those west coast mountains at a few points to provide redundancy).
And programs should be put in place to lower our dependence on one energy source for anything important, like people going to work or transporting goods long distances (high speed railroads seem an obvious option... start blasting through those west coast mountains at a few points to provide redundancy).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Seriously? Have you met "rich affluent <ethnicity> <gender>"?
Fill in the blank with whatever you want, the demographics are irrelevant. Keep up the demographic war if you want more Trump...
Last edited:
Upvote
-6
(1
/
-7)
How do we change that? Since they have no motivation to.
What if people had objective situations posed to them, and they made decisions. Like the trolly problem in varying ways. Then those would be quantified into a fingerprint/hash that best matches them. And candidates would do the same, and the best match would be pointed at for voting. There would need to be measurements periodically to compare claimed actions, and actual actions, to see how well they match (inaction is different than opposite actions, and probably needs a different measure like 'activity' or 'votes cast vs possible').
Or...?
I'm not saying it is easy, but "let's just wait and see" is what got us here, and will continue to get us what we're getting.
Lots of out of work software people, and AI tools that'll write what you ask for too.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Republicans writing laws shielding companies from something the Republicans say doesn't exist.
If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide...
If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide...
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
" Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Seven Third-Way Democrats, sure. And this scenario has happened too many times to be a coincidence. Always seems to be senators that have announced their retirements or who have extremely safe seats. Afterwards, Schumer throws up his hands and whines about such rogue members and how powerless he is to stop them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If you want more Trump and vote for more Trump, it's because you want Trump and you like what he does and wants to do and you're indifferent to or supportive of his many, many crimes, including rape of minors, not because I point out - accurately - that rich white men enjoy a level of impunity and immunity not available in this country even to rich, affluent people who aren't white. And I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into not calling this reality like it is because you're telling me it'll hurt your fee-fees to be reminded that privilege exists, so have a seat.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Because it's not. The oligarchy keep very tight control over the proportions of Reps and senators in congress for the express purpose of making it incredibly easy and cheap to flip just enough of them to obstruct or advance their preferred legislation. Or did you think it was a coincidence that congress represents the interests of corporations and their wealthy owners ~70% of the time, regardless of clear harm to the public? See, they don't need to 'own' all of congress to get what they want. All they need is to own enough to swing the votes their way. Turns out, buying congress is cheap, because enough politicians are often glorified whores, which is why they were chosen and pushed into office by wealthy interests in the first place.
Last edited:
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
This should make me furious.
But they’re trying to shield the captain of the Titanic from legal liability after we’ve already hit the ice berg. Also, we burnt all the life boats for a luau last week.
So, ya know, whatever…
But they’re trying to shield the captain of the Titanic from legal liability after we’ve already hit the ice berg. Also, we burnt all the life boats for a luau last week.
So, ya know, whatever…
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
The demographic that has become today's GOP has been stuck in the anger stage of grief for a hundred years longer than that.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
QuarterSwede
Ars Praetorian
When leaders fail to hold people and organizations accountable they are no longer trusted leaders.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
That presumes it can be changed at all. Because what you're talking about -- tribalism -- is a pretty base human behavior. So trying to change the way people engage with politics is somewhere between a never-ending Sisyphean-level uphill battle and just pissing into the wind. And that's why Republicans are so successful despite being so overtly evil -- they know how to exploit humanity's innate-tribalism behavior to get what they want, no matter how much the people helping them do it suffer for it.
After all, you cannot reason people out of a position or belief that they did not reason themselves into in the first place.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but... What exactly were petroleum companies supposed to do? Stop extracting, refining and selling? Is someone really going to make an argument that the world would be better off without petroleum and everything powered by it and made from it? That's also discounting the consumer and consumption side of the equation.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
I know this is purely a political discourse here and this will be banned. I agree that legislation that bans judicial action is bad, but was is the Oil, Gas, can Coal companies actually burring the stuff? As much as they made us dependent on the stuff, it was not just them (car companies, Oil burner companies, coal furnace companies....) And lets not forget the people that saw cheap fuel and said this is good. "We have met the enemy and he is us". Heating my house would not be possible without a lot of wood (cut the trees down is a good idea) until solar and Low temperature air heat pumps were available. I have both right now. The electric company I am attached to (MA has "net" metering and the quotes are needed as "net" is not an equal equation due to regulation) is doing there best to make Gas and Oil as attractive as possible. Everyone has responsibility for the Global warming
So for all my net zero use of energy I can muster, I am the bad guy here (just waiting for this to be down voted into oblivion)
Oh look QED, but there was one constructive comment on this so there is some hope
So for all my net zero use of energy I can muster, I am the bad guy here (just waiting for this to be down voted into oblivion)
Oh look QED, but there was one constructive comment on this so there is some hope
Last edited:
Upvote
-8
(0
/
-8)
So they are admitting to climate change and that these polluters are the culprits?
If they didn't think it was real then this wouldn't be happening?
If they didn't think it was real then this wouldn't be happening?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They could have been public about the fact that the product they make was fucking up our entire planet and then used their vast wealth to transition their companies into greener energy sources. They'd have been lauded for their responsible actions and still made a shitton of money as leaders in the energy revolution we're going through now, but decades earlier. And they would still have been in the fossil fuel extraction business the entire time because that kind of change of the entire economy, industry, and generation happens slowly. There's several uses for oil and even to an extent coal for which we still don't have good replacements. Such as aviation fuel.
Instead, they did everything to hide that knowledge for decades and fought against it tooth and nail with lies and deflection for further decades, all the while doing everything they could to keep their entrenched position and further incentivize burning fossil fuels, knowing the harm it causes. It's Big Tobacco villainy except dooming the entire human civilization.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
You act like no corporation has ever diversified. Petroleum and natural gas is still useful for lots of stuff, even if one is burning less of it, so it's hardly like they'd completely abandon that. But come on, my man, Nintendo printed playing cards and Nokia was a paper mill; there's absolutely no reason why an energy company couldn't diversify into solar and wind, grid storage, battery cells, EV charging, heat pumps. So nah, I really don't believe that the bright lights at ExxonMobil or BP couldn't have figured out a way to keep the lights on while helping or at least not hindering climate mitigation.
And if they couldn't? Fuck 'em. This is why I think there should be a corporate death penalty.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)