And these fossil fuel companies aren't just doing this in the US. When you look at what they view as the path forward to keep selling oil to burn, it's all about doing things like setting up floating power plants for developing nations and subsidizing road construction to aid in the sale of ICE vehicles.

The problem with these companies is the externalities of their actions are not priced in. For them, it's more a simple game of figuring out how to get the world to burn more oil.

This lawsuit may not have merit, but it does point to the need for trying to price in the impact on climate change with oil burning.

> Companies like British Petroleum have used marketing to frame climate change as “consumers doing bad things” with their “carbon footprint”. So if that’s what your mind goes to first, that’s no coincidence.

It's also common sense. Literally nothing stops first-world consumers from not buying stuff that requires emission of greenhouse gases except for their lifestyle preferences.

> It’s all about the money. Money buys media which buys narrative and mindshare.

Yep, you bought into the idea that you don't have to change your lifestyle because it is all fault of the big oil.

You call it a lifestyle preference, I call it staying alive. But that bag of potatoes I just bought wouldn't be in the grocery store without a long chain of greenhouse gas emissions.

Lies repeated enough become truth which becomes common sense.

> Literally nothing stops first-world consumers from not buying stuff that requires emission of greenhouse gases except for their lifestyle preferences.

Literally nothing. Uh-huh as if we’re talking about buying a monster truck compared to a Volvo instead of the lifeblood of the whole modern (inefficient) supply chain.

> Yep, you bought into the idea that you don't have to change your lifestyle because it is all fault of the big oil.

Via what money?