This is true, but my point is there weren't cost-effective alternatives at that time anyway so blaming climate disasters squarely on the shoulders of oil companies and not acknowledging the fact that demand fueled the value of oil doesn't make logical sense, even from an empirical perspective. Now, lawsuits for local disasters and oil spills do make sense.

It does if you think that alternatives to fossil fuel would have become economical earlier, had the fossil fuel industry not intervened.

Another framing: how many wind, solar, hydrothermal, etc. plants did we not build because their economic envelope was artificially dampened by investment and legislative preference for fossil fuels?

I do agree with this. They stifled progress as much as they could but that only slows things down, and because we don't truly know what would have happened, it's not productive to play the blame game and say we'd have a spotless utopia if it weren't for the oil companies. Who knows, not enough people at that time may not have cared or maybe we would have the utopia we all want. It's all guesswork and at this point we need to spend our energy moving forward instead of focusing on the past.

Punishing major corporations at scale might help prevent the next multi-generational fuckup, and help pay for the energy and changes moving forward.

I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to defend here? I understand arguing that you can't guarantee a different approach would have led to better results, but in this situation it seems fairly clear that corporations being open and honest would be superior.

Say they’d gone to Nixon like they were considering, or Carter a little later. The U.S. might have ended up like France with a massive nuclear investment _and_ stronger investment in renewable and efficiency wins - the solar panels Reagan removed from the White House weren’t anywhere near modern standard but there was a ton of interest in lowering pollution which was derailed in the name of increased profit margins during the 80s.

No, it wouldn’t change everything but you don’t need carbon emissions to be 100% to be useful. Every bit you reduce buys time to work on the harder parts of the economy.

How do you think you come around to having cost-effective alternatives? You need people actively working on them, and for that you need an incentive.

The 'there weren't cost-effective alternatives at that time' as an excuse for at the very least inaction (morally condemnable) and at most criminal litigation-worthy propaganda, lies and damages, I find it, in all due respect, quite poor.

As an excuse on the part of the oil companies, I completely agree. But that point was directed at the supply/demand situation from the perspective of the world's consumers and not from the oil companies. So any effects emissions have had on the environment can't be placed squarely on the shoulders of the oil companies but the market (world population) as a whole.

It wasn't cost effective to save ourselves; Kurt Vonnegut was prophetic.

Oh no, well if there aren’t cost-effective alternatives for the corporation to slot into the profit opportunity then that’s that. Can’t blame the poor corporations who just wanted to make money, their God-given right after all.

Epistemic uncertainty: I wasn't alive back then and haven't done a deep dive on the historical evidence to form a strong view on the claim.

However, Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a post about that [0]. My understanding is that there was still a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community during the 80s, although around the 90s there was a movement by oil companies to downplay the impact of climate change.

With that being said, whether or not oil companies were aware back then doesn't mean they cannot still be held accountable in the present. And we definitely have evidence of oil companies engaging in bad faith since the turn of the millennium to obfuscate our understanding of climate science.

[0] https://x.com/skdh/status/1810915186443722844

I doubt it would have changed much. An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago, and traditional ICE cars (excluding hybrids) still have 80% market share. It's fairly well-known at this point that going vegetarian (or vegan) cuts individual CO2 emissions dramatically, but people aren't signing up for it.

People aren't willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for the environment.

There is lot of choices individuals could make. Forgo EVs, only walk or bike. Instead of living in large spaces, move to something much smaller like capsules. Forgo electronics and internet in general.

More chance to build better habits with next generation than trying to convience gran’pa doing differently…

In France we (edu and ecology ministers iirc) tried to have only vegetarian meal one day per week in public schools. Agriculture ministers got very angry as well as a bunch of noisy parents. Legislator choose to abandon the project.

At least some of that inaction is due to the billions of dollars spent encouraging it. For example, ICE SUVs are common because they’re subsidized by the government. If there wasn’t a huge mass of climate denial funding it into a political litmus test, removing those subsidies would mean that the median vehicle on the road burns half as much gas.

I don't disagree but I've always found that argument a bit disingenuous. Have you ever seen an oil well getting drilled in a movie or on TV? Or just seen oil? Or seen and smelled the gas that goes into cars?

Is anyone able to say with a straightface that they didn't know oil that oil is bad for the environment? I get that the oil companies have more blame than other people, but this argument of "the global population was fooled, nobody knew it was bad so we kept using oil, and those mean people at the oil company kept the information from us"... Everyone knows. The same way everyone knows most weird smelling chemicals aren't great for the environment either, but if we have a stained tshirt we'll use them.

We're all complicit, and while I agree some are more to blame than others, it's not necessary to pretend the rest of us are innocent.

oil literally comes from the environment, how is it inherently bad for the environment?

we should ban lava too, have you seen the environmental damage it can do?

> we should ban lava too

Have we not already? That seems like an oversight...

Looks like you got too close to the truth.