The energy industry is pressing for laws that would ban climate liability lawsuits.
See full article...
See full article...
Michigan accuses oil companies of antitrust violations in climate change lawsuit
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It's the yin to the oil-industry's 'incessant disinformation warfare' yang. There are instances where 'fight fire with fire' really is the only choice. Public awareness via legal campaigns like this is one of them. It's not a coincidence that wealthy interests have been fighting to take over the public's access to information and education for over half a century -- they want those things dead and buried, so the public can be even more easily swayed, manipulated, and duped on a whim. An ignorant public isn't just a pliable public, it's an enslaved public.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The only way that implementation can work reasonably is if it's only applied to corporate vehicle owners that profit directly from miles driven, namely big-rigs making deliveries. Otherwise, in a car-dependent economy, it's an especially regressive tax imposed on people who don't have much say in their commute.
It makes a lot of sense to tax the companies that regard city-asphalt as an externality. But the average Joe is being hurt in the pocketbook more than disincentivized from wasteful behavior.
The only relevant difference that makes high-gas-taxes a bit more acceptable is because people have a little more say in the overall fuel usage of their vehicles than they have over the miles they drive.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Unless money can't buy power or influence, this will be the paradigm for the human race for the remainder of our existence, and be the root of the reason why it ceases to exist.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Oh, I certainly agree with your analysis. You are leaving out the part about exhausting the public with an endless onslaught of detail.
What I think is true is some battles should be give up if they're not going to result in ROI. A big part of the liberal problem in the 21st is inability to focus. Conservatives, for good or ill, do a better job at that. With a great deal of "success" so far, if you can call it that. Progress anyway.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Big Oil may win this. But they will still run out of oil and people willing to buy their products.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
“We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms,” Meyers added.
Of course, he does. Up until it is a democratically dominated congress, then it is state rights or some other lame excuse. And climate science should never be allowed in the courtrooms to override big oil, because physical evidence is just not fair. All views should be allowed, not just sane ones, and being so important to the economy, their views are so much, much bigger! /S
Of course, he does. Up until it is a democratically dominated congress, then it is state rights or some other lame excuse. And climate science should never be allowed in the courtrooms to override big oil, because physical evidence is just not fair. All views should be allowed, not just sane ones, and being so important to the economy, their views are so much, much bigger! /S
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I mean, if you want to be cynical about absolutely fucking everything right now just because your preferred people aren't in power...well that's your prerogative, but damn, that's gotta be an exhausting way to live.
This lawsuit does serve a purpose. How is antitrust law a total non-starter? That's what the basis of this suit is in. It is also being brought up at the federal and state of Michigan level. You seem to be under the impression that the Supreme Court is just going to swat this down as soon as they catch wind of it. I'd honestly be surprised if it even reached that level any time soon, if ever. See the Puerto Rico antitrust case referenced in the article. True, that one has stalled (and is being appealed), but plenty of legal scholars who I would wager a hefty sum on have more expertise than you do think the state of Michigan case being presented here has better grounds to stand on than that one did.
And again, whose lawyers is this feeding and to what purpose? You really think Dana Nessel and her office were sitting around one day going, "You know what? We need to feed money to some poor, deprived lawfirm somewhere. Let's fabricate a case that has zero chance, just so we can have someone to pay."
Come on, now. That's ridiculous.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It's about public transportation, not overall transportation on roads. I feel that maybe you didn't duckduckgo what the Firestone Conspiracy, or what really was a monopoly on US public transportation systems: GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy That's what is being referred to here, but you just made some assumption, and you attacked while pretending to be on the right side of Green movement, and that you are responsible and other people are "making excuses". Public transportation in America still sucks I spent most of my life in Boston which is said to be the most walking-friendly city in the nation, and that's pitiful. It doesn't matter how many roads one has, or boycotting... Oh why am I bothering to explain? You can instead be happily ignorant and blame (other?) Americans for "making excuses to rely to Firestone".
Last edited:
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
Never thought about big oil being patent trolls.
In other news the patent system needs and has needed a use it or lose it structural overhaul for decades.
In other news the patent system needs and has needed a use it or lose it structural overhaul for decades.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Well, first of all, the current shareholders will be dead before that happens, so what do they care? Most stocks are owned by 1% of people, and most of those people are over 60.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
You're right, I didn't do a web search to look up stuff I already knew about. You definitely got me.
Back in the 1930s, Germany and Italy were becoming autocracies and preparing a war that would see them get flattened. China was flip-flopping between killing each other domestically and getting genocided by Japan. And Japan was itself the land of only a single rising sun.
Meanwhile, Firestone was tearing up streetcar tracks in the US. One of these things is not like the others.
All those other countries rebuilt after WW2. At first, back in the 1950s and 60s, they rebuilt for cars (except China, which hadn't quite finished killing themselves yet). Then they figured out that was dumb -- with the help of middle eastern wars and revolutions causing oil prices to rise -- and reinvested in rail starting in the 1970s.
I for one find the claim that Firestone was far more damaging than nuclear bombs to be risible.
It is true, also, that I'm not a Green. The Greens are too disorganized. And I say that as an NDP member.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
I don't think for a moment Michigan is not right about this. I just don't think cases like this have legs in the current national moment.
I also don't think your strawman version of the thought process here is relevant. What is relevant is we have a whole giant legal class that operates divorced from reality, and it sucks up a lot of the oxygen in the national conversation. I can think of at least 10 huge cases happening right now that are going nowhere but will consume huge amounts of court time and attention, huge amounts of money, and will be reported on breathlessly for ages as they go nowhere.
It's a rube goldberg machine that isn't serving us. That's all I'm saying.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Er...what exactly was a strawman in my post? I'm not following. You're the one who said, and I quote you, "It's just an excuse to feed lawyers."
How else was that supposed to be interpreted?
I'm not sure your clarification is really any better; you're insinuating that the people raising this lawsuit know it's a waste of the time, energy, and money of those involved yet they're doing it anyway? I'm not with you on that. I don't know that to be true. It may well play out that way, but...what if it doesn't?
I dunno, I guess you're just bound to be cynical so I'm shouting into the void. I just don't agree with your logic leaps, and I choose to not automatically be dismissive of every attempt at doing anything good right now because something something Republicans Trump Supreme Court hand wave motions.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Such a lawsuit as described in this article will raise prices for consumers, succeed or fail, and will fail to accelerate transition to renewables. The fossil fuel industry protects its profits, like every other company/industry, but they can do so because the technologies that allow for them to be replaced don't exist in many sectors, and the cost of an immediate transition away from fossil fuels would be disastrous and catastrophically expensive for consumers/taxpayers. There is no alternative to fossil fuels for many parts of the economy, such as aviation, steel, car travel in winter beyond the local, heat pump warmth in an old home, shipping, and many more. Over time there will be solutions for all of these, but "over time" means decades (in some cases many decades) to work out the energy needs of these sectors. I say this as someone with a 12kw solar array on my roof, and a lot of money invested in heat pumps for my NE US old house, and a profound interest in avoiding the worst case climate-change scenarios. We are stuck with fossil fuels for some time still, but should take some solace in the massive CO2 declines we are nonetheless achieving, and all the exciting new technologies that might come online in the coming 5-10 years. And the exciting possibility that, as we transition to 100% renewables over the next century, we can mitigate the worst of climate change through careful geo-engineering.
Upvote
-8
(1
/
-9)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
"...and is actively reducing emissions."
Is that what they tell themselves?
I'll believe that when I see a solar-powered car in the dealer lot.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
They aren't telling themselves that. They're telling the public that.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Every EV is solar powered. And wind powered, too. And even nuclear powered! Depending on where the owner lives. And how aggressively the fossil-fuel industry is obstructing the transition away from coal, gasoline, and natural gas to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Turns out...the means to replace oil, gasoline, and natural gas already exists. It's just being actively impeded to protect an existing, destructive business model that has prioritized short-term gains by externalizing the true cost of their operations for over a century. And this is not a matter of conjecture either -- memos from within these businesses have shown their tactics and methods and that they're very deliberate. The only point of contention here is whether multiple such businesses colluded to engage in this behavior. But one has only to point at their lobbying firms and industry organizations formed and funded expressly to represent their collective interests to show that, yes, they are openly engaged in collusion, and have been for a very, very long time.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
At this point I'm all for referring the whole bunch - oil companies, lobbyists, think tanks, and bought politicians - to The Hague for crimes against humanity. They are working - especially the current crop - on killing us all so they can get a nicer yacht. Which they'll need after they melt Greenland.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
K. Wish into that hand, and I'll spit into mine. We'll see which fills up first.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
All these lawsuits against petroleum energy companies are a major stretch and unlikely to succeed. A waste of taxpayer money.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Harry Harrison was very good at pointing out how much things sucked, but one thing he never said was people should stop fighting because it was "unlikely to succeed".
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
All part of the art of the deal. Leaded gass, asbestos, pfas, CO2, ... Invent it, sell it, get rich, notice your product causes global harm. Collect evidence. Convince yourself that it is a disaster waiting to happen. Lock the evidence in the safe. Continue making profit. Obstruct independant researchers, spread doubt and confusion, discourage any alternatives. Get sued after decades, pay a small percentage of the profit that year. Shout that poor people should work harder. Repeat.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Only aviation and shipping are a problem. The rest isn't.
Aviation - small stuff is going electric already. Passenger stuff requires few decades with current improvements, but no huge breakthrough is missing - you could make a passenger plane with 300km range if you really had to, but it is dumb.
There is carbon neutral iron and steel production, it is fairly expensive at the moment but the tech is there. Make CO2 emissions more costly and it will get implemented nearly immediately.
EV works in winter. A car with supposed 230 km range did 180 km trip just fine (and obviously required recharging on the way back). Winter, but only around 0C, not -30. Though thanks to oil industry temperatures are rising so it is less of a problem each year
Most old homes can use heat pump just fine, though their only option is a high-temp heat pump to heat radiators enough. It has worse efficiency than single-stage one, but you can buy it just fine right now. Almost nobody does though, as if you had the money for such home upgrades you would buy insulation first.
Ocean shipping is also few decades out to electrify, though for it hydrogen is a viable "kind-of-green" replacement.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Focusing a bit on EV companies, the associated supply chain & charging stations have received significant government subsidies. Adoption during the heavy governmental subsidies increased and infrastructure was built out, however the electric cars and heavy haulers (semi rigs) could not become economically competitive as subsidies were removed.
Simply put the EV push has been very expensive for tax payers to fund and yet only Tesla has been able to make a profit in common EV vehicles.
They blue states continue to push the lawsuits, however have any of you actually contributes to pushing the alternative green technologies forward or do you just read tech journals and complain? My bet its the former and you probably hate Elon Musk who has done the most to push EV forward for the common person.
The fossil fuel companies should cut off all deliveries to the blue states participating in lawsuits as such and teach them a lesson. You do not want oil then stop buying it!
Simply put the EV push has been very expensive for tax payers to fund and yet only Tesla has been able to make a profit in common EV vehicles.
They blue states continue to push the lawsuits, however have any of you actually contributes to pushing the alternative green technologies forward or do you just read tech journals and complain? My bet its the former and you probably hate Elon Musk who has done the most to push EV forward for the common person.
The fossil fuel companies should cut off all deliveries to the blue states participating in lawsuits as such and teach them a lesson. You do not want oil then stop buying it!
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Funny how big companies don’t like state rights when the feds refuse to regulate.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
and part of it is capitalism -- if the oil companies were working on solar and EV and could see that the future was electric, why didn't they set up and nurture subdivisions which they could more to when fossil fuels became unprofitable? incompetence.
But no corporation is capable of looking 5 years in the future
But no corporation is capable of looking 5 years in the future
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Good point, but I still don't discount internal-communication also being propaganda.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Price is an important signal, and to the extent that a person cannot afford to keep her/his house at 70º in winter, there may be climate benefits. Green energy, however, requires large capital outlays - if you have to pay more for your heating oil each month, you may be able to do so, but might not be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars to shift to a solar array and heat pumps. And while it is true that for new construction, per-kwh cost of generation is cheaper for gird-scale renewables, that cost does not reflect the problem of intermittency. Again, transitioning to renewable power was important enough to me that I spent a lot of money doing it, and even with that significant investment it's not a complete transition. So no, it's not contradictory - the price of fossil fuels would have to rise by multiples before all of the cost of transition makes economic sense.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Not really. Oil companies made more money by delaying clean tech for few years than they could by joining the solar+EV race. Yes, in the far future, oil company dies because they didn't switch. But in any reasonable time scale (<20 years) economically the best move from oil company was (and is) to try delaying clean tech. Something they are doing. Yeah, they are hated assholes destroying the planet, but they sleep nice and sound on a huge pillow full of cash.
Looking at beyond 20 years is exercise in futility, as you cannot sensibly predict how stuff evolves even if you are one of people evolving it. Transportation itself didn't really change in the last 50 years, most of relevant changes related to it were brought externally - for example video conferences making a lot of business travel less needed, or work from home which was catalyzed by a tiny little virus.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I recall reading a science fiction story once, about an interstellar archeological expedition studying an extinct technological civilization. One of the archeologists/anthropologists eventually figured out that the reason for the species suddenly going extinct was because their economic system crashed -- unfortunately for these aliens, their economy was interwoven with their biology, and the species went extinct when their economy did.
.
(I don't recall author or title -- if anyone knows what it might have been, please tell.)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Unfortunately, there's already far more proven reserves than we can afford to burn.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
It's more than greed. Or for many, it was/can be.
My father worked for approximately a decade in the oil industry, (late 1950s/early 1960s), (in an Big Oil office, not on rigs) before moving on to other industries -- and has never been able to really accept the reality of the consequences of the oil industry's role in our society, politics, and global warming/climate change. He bought into the propaganda about how the world runs on oil and needs oil, and despite being very intelligent just hasn't really been able to shake the petroleum industry perspective ever since.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)