Bills Would Ban Liability Lawsuits For Climate Change (insideclimatenews.org)
- Reference: 0181011660
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/16/2222200/bills-would-ban-liability-lawsuits-for-climate-change
- Source link: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14032026/republican-legislation-shielding-polluters-from-climate-lawsuits/
> Republican lawmakers in multiple states and Congress are advancing proposals to shield polluters from climate accountability and [1]prevent any type of liability for climate change harms -- even as these harms and their associated costs continue to mount. It's the latest in a counter-offensive that has unfolded on multiple fronts, from the halls of Congress and the White House to courts and state attorneys general offices across the country.
>
> Dozens of local communities, states and individuals are suing major oil and gas companies and their trade associations over rising climate costs and for allegedly lying to consumers about climate change risks and solutions. At the same time, some states are enacting or considering laws modeled after the federal Superfund program that would impose retroactive liability on large fossil fuel producers and levy a one-time charge on them to help fund climate adaptation and resiliency measures. But many of these cases and climate superfund laws could be stopped in their tracks, either by the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court or by the Republican-controlled Congress.
>
> Last month the court decided to take up a petition lodged by oil companies Suncor and ExxonMobil in a climate-damages case brought against the companies by Boulder, Colorado. The petition argues that Boulder's claims are barred by federal law, and if the justices agree, it could knock out not only Boulder's lawsuit but also many others like it. The court is expected to hear the case during its upcoming term that starts in October. There is also a possibility that Republicans in Congress will take action before then to gift the fossil fuel industry legal immunity, similar to that granted to gun manufacturers with the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Sixteen Republican attorneys general [2]wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in June suggesting that the Department of Justice could recommend legislation creating precisely this type of liability shield. And last month, one Republican congresswoman announced that such legislation is indeed in the works.
"The ultimate democratic institution in America is the jury," said former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. Enacting policies that prevent or block climate-related lawsuits against polluters, he said, would effectively shutter "the doors of the courthouse to Americans that have been injured by oil and gas company pollution and by their lies and deceit about that pollution."
"I really think it's an un-American effort to deny Americans the traditional right of access to a jury," Inslee said. Oil and gas executives are "terrified" by the prospect of having to stand before a jury and face evidence of their climate-change lies and deception, he added. "You'll see the steam coming out of the jury's ears when they hear about how they've been lied to for decades. [Oil companies] understand why juries will be outraged by it, and they are shaking in their boots. The day of reckoning is coming, and that's why they're afraid."
[1] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14032026/republican-legislation-shielding-polluters-from-climate-lawsuits/
[2] https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/Letter%20to%20Dep't%20of%20Justice%20on%20Energy%20Actions%20(corrected).pdf
Just remember (Score:1)
Back in 1994 all the tobacco execs swore under oath that nicotine was not addictive. [1]https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacc... [ucsf.edu]
[1] https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress
People are confused because judges lie (Score:2)
> "The ultimate democratic institution in America is the jury,"
Yes, but even before the beginning of a trial, the judge is lying to the potential jury members about how if the facts are a certain way, they MUST decide a certain way. As a result of this institutionalized gaslighting, people do not in fact understand what the role of a jury actually is. Remove every judge who tells these lies to potential jurors from the bench and replace them with someone less dedicated to disempowering jurors, and maybe you'll see some respect for the position return.
Re:People are confused because judges lie (Score:5, Informative)
That's how I got out of jury duty. They asked me several times if I would believe the police if the judge instructed me to. Told them no due to first hand experience with cops lying in court. That ended that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention this has been studied a lot, and... Eyewitness evidence is unreliable, police testimony is even less reliable, and cops themselves coined the term "testilying" for what they do on the stand.
Re: People are confused because judges lie (Score:2)
Why do you want to "get out" of jury duty?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do you want to "get out" of jury duty?
Because it's forced labor which is not punishment for a crime, and therefore unconstitutional? No one should be paid less than minimum wage for serving on a jury. It's one thing to be told you have to do it, it's another to be told that you have to do it for free. That's just a limited-time form of slavery, to which practically every institution in this nation boils down in the end.
Re: People are confused because judges lie (Score:5, Interesting)
Good grief that is warped in terms of your view of civic duty. Nobody can enjoy even really basic rights like a fair trial without jurors. Therefore everyone must have a duty to serve. Sure we could pay them more but with what? oh right more taxes also effectively bills of attainder where the government takes your property (money usually) without having convicted you of a crime.
Really fairness would mean one of two things, either we
A) don't pay jurors at all. Service is simply viewed as the price tag for living in a free society.
That has problems because it means those living hand to mouth could find jury duty ruinous, which strikes me as a bad policy.
B) pay people whatever income they can reasonably demonstrate they are forging while serving. The current system is if anything excessively progressive in that someone making minimum wage at their day job is losing a whole lot less income than someone who might perhaps make three times that. It is really unfair.
Re: (Score:3)
> Good grief that is warped in terms of your view of civic duty.
Only if you believe that the court system wasn't designed to rubber stamp fuckery, in which case you're a stupid sucker proving Barnum was right.
> Sure we could pay them more but with what?
Not thoughts and prayers.
> pay people whatever income they can reasonably demonstrate they are forging while serving. The current system is if anything excessively progressive in that someone making minimum wage at their day job is losing a whole lot less income than someone who might perhaps make three times that. It is really unfair.
The minimum wage should be a living wage, in which case there would be no case for it being unfair for anyone to be paid it for doing jury duty. That someone normally makes more is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
> The minimum wage should be a living wage
No, there should actually be no minimum wage, work should pay the market will bear. There is no reason anyone should be entitled to earn living for doing work that isn't worth that much.
> That someone normally makes more is irrelevant.
Now you're moving the goal posts. Your objecting originally was jury duty is forced labor. If the government is insisting I spend my time doing something that I don't want to do that is work vs pleasure or voluntary service, than paying me anything less than my normal labor rate amounts to wage theft or slavery.
Re: People are confused because judges lie (Score:2)
> No, there should actually be no minimum wage, work should pay the market will bear. There is no reason anyone should be entitled to earn living for doing work that isn't worth that much.
Following that logic, there is no reason anyone rich should be entitled to not being stolen from while others are starving. You don't get to cherry-pick the psychopathic rules. I don't care how much you worked for it, you being rich is never more important than poor people having a home and food.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no reason anyone should be entitled to earn living for doing work that isn't worth that much.
If you cared about other people, there would be. Since you don't, GFY psychopath.
Re: (Score:1)
> There is no reason anyone should be entitled to earn living for doing work that isn't worth that much.
True, which is why I propose that we massively slash the wages of CEOs and give raises to the people who are actually doing work to keep companies going on a day to day basis.
Re: (Score:2)
> Only if you believe that the court system wasn't designed to rubber stamp fuckery, in which case you're a stupid sucker proving Barnum was right.
By definition if you ended up at a jury trial you're long past rubber stamping anything. Did you pay any attention to anything in school?
Re: (Score:2)
> By definition if you ended up at a jury trial you're long past rubber stamping anything.
Tell us you're a deluded simpleton who believes in all of the myths of our society without telling us.
Re: (Score:2)
> Only if you believe that the court system wasn't designed to rubber stamp fuckery,
The court system accepts as much dickery as juries allow. Letting the more intelligent people avoid jury duty, a culture of not understanding how important serving on juries is, contributes to such dickery.
Re: (Score:2)
The downside to trying to replace a day's pay is that the courts couldn't afford jurors who don't just make minimum wage. Investment bankers should have to sit on juries just like everyone else.
But, as you pointed out it is a civic duty, so that there is any compensation at all is a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sure we could pay them more but with what?
2% of the bloated police budget.
Re: (Score:2)
> Good grief that is warped in terms of your view of civic duty. Nobody can enjoy even really basic rights like a fair trial without jurors.
The trial was made unfair the moment I was asked to have my vote influenced by a judge and not the presented evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a civic duty, not a punishment. A cost you bear for participating in society, because it is necessary for society.
Also, you are paid for it, so you aren't doing it for free. Does it pay enough? No, but again, it's a civic duty, not a career. Furthermore, "slavery" is a permanent condition of being owned. You're thinking of indentured servitude.
That you would consider your civic duty to be a form of slavery speaks volumes. I'm honestly a bit shocked, but it would help to explain how you coul
Jury Duty a Civic Duty, a "privelage" historically (Score:1)
>> Why do you want to "get out" of jury duty?
> Because it's forced labor which is not punishment for a crime, and therefore unconstitutional?
Actually jury duty was largely unpaid before and after the US Constitution. It was, and is, consider a civic duty that citizens are responsible for. In those early days of the country it was considered a privilege, they knew quite well what a judicial system without juries was like, and understood very well that a system where regular people decide guilt was an important safeguard. A check and balance against the judicial branch of government if you will. No one should be paid less than minimum wage for
Perhaps you are not familiar with jury duty (Score:1)
> Because it's forced labor which is not punishment for a crime, and therefore unconstitutional?
Locally, jurors no longer wait in rooms to be called. They call in early in the morning to see if they are assigned to a pool. Most never even get assigned to a pool so they do nothing other than make one call early in the morning for a week.
If assigned to a pool for the day and not selected for a trial, they are done with jury duty.
90%+ trials are one or two days. Most serving jurors are paid by their employers during jury duty. Longer trials tend to have retirees on a pension, government employees w
Re: (Score:2)
> Locally, jurors no longer wait in rooms to be called. They call in early in the morning to see if they are assigned to a pool.
Maybe that's how it works where you are. Last time I was called, it took me THREE visits to the jury service office to find out whether or not I would be selected.
We have a questionnaire system where you can tell the court that you will be busy. Mostly they do not bother to look at these. If you call them to call their attention to them, they still do not look at them. I have to transport another person to medical appointments during the week I've been called for. I filled out the form online the day after
Re: (Score:2)
We have none of that. We have one big room with hard chairs, zero diligence done, and zero fucks given.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's an enormous pain in the ass. I have to take vacation time from work or go unpaid. I have to drive downtown and either pay $40 a day to park in a garage or $15 further away and take public transport or an Uber. Then at the end of the day they give me a whopping $7 and a handful of change for my troubles.
Re: People are confused because judges lie (Score:2)
You forgot to mention that you get to live in the greatest place on earth you ungrateful piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's how I got out of jury duty. They asked me several times if I would believe the police if the judge instructed me to. Told them no due to first hand experience with cops lying in court.
Nobody in their right mind would agree to that.
Re: (Score:1)
"I believe in jury nullification."
Re: (Score:2)
"the facts are a certain way, they MUST decide a certain way." That's just restating the law which was transgressed.
Re: (Score:2)
> "the facts are a certain way, they MUST decide a certain way." That's just restating the law which was transgressed.
No, it obviously is not. Restating the law is done like this: "Section whatever states that such and such is a misdemeanor" while lying to juries is done like this: "if such and such happened, you must return a guilty verdict" when they absolutely do not have to and also cannot be held accountable for returning another verdict.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I think I see where you're coming from, but the juries rule on matters of fact, not matters of law. The judge rules on the law. So, the judge is telling the jury, "If you determine that the facts are X,Y,Z, then the law says crime C was committed and thus the logical consequence is that you must find the defendant guilty of it."
Juries can still decide otherwise, if they believe a guilty verdict would be an injustice, and improper jury instructions are grounds for an appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
> So, the judge is telling the jury, "If you determine that the facts are X,Y,Z, then the law says crime C was committed and thus the logical consequence is that you must find the defendant guilty of it."
> Juries can still decide otherwise
So you know it's a lie, but you're still here defending it. The way the courts are designed fucks us and you're here for it. #cuckshit
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah so jury nullification is probably what you are hinting at and it's the last line of defense in a failed government and legal system.
Legally jury nullification is illegal. As a jurer you are legally bound to find on the facts regardless of your opinion of the law.
That said we have plenty of writings from people who set up our legal system and frankly people who forms the foundations of that legal system talking about it. So it was very much intentional that if all else failed and the government
Re: (Score:2)
Juries are supposed to decide the facts, and judges the law. It's not "lying" to tell the jury that the case will go a certain way if they find certain facts. However, what you hint at is the confused history behind jury nullification. This is mostly a criminal issue, but part of the idea behind the juries was that they could override an authority who was too aggressive. That's something that goes beyond fact. The problem is that judges are loathe to tell juries they can nullify as they don't want juries to
Jury nullification a part of system ... (Score:1)
> Juries are supposed to decide the facts, and judges the law. It's not "lying" to tell the jury that the case will go a certain way if they find certain facts. However, what you hint at is the confused history behind jury nullification. This is mostly a criminal issue, but part of the idea behind the juries was that they could override an authority who was too aggressive. That's something that goes beyond fact. The problem is that judges are loathe to tell juries they can nullify as they don't want juries to think that they can make up the law for themselves.
It's called jury nullification. And it is intentionally part of the system, a check and balance the standing judiciary would never admit to. Yet, the founding fathers considered jury duty the check against an unjust law in extreme cases. Also a way to bring some common sense into the system, rather than blindly following the letter of the law, the literal statute failing to consider something unanticipated.
Provable, quantifiable damages... (Score:5, Insightful)
...are essentially impossible to establish. Suits for "climate change" would be nothing but a way for ambulance-chasing lawyers to enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Barring suits for "climate change" would be nothing but a way for ambulance avoiding companies to enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the impact of car exhaust on the climate. Why are we going to punish the oil companies? They aren't the ones turning gasoline into greenhouse gases, it's the motorist that buys the gasoline and turns it into greenhouse gases. Aside from the occasional spill (which oil companies, pipelines, and drilling rigs try very, very hard to avoid due to lost revenue/profit), oil companies aren't the ones polluting the atmosphere.
It reminds me of the cigarette judgement of a few decades ago, the cigarette comp
Re: (Score:1)
That's a flaw with the US legal system. In Europe they work well enough. You only have to prove that a company contributed significantly to climate change in a negligent way (i.e. they should reasonably have known what they were doing was causing problems) on the balance of probabilities, i.e. >50% chance they did.
The main benefit so far has been to force governments to accelerate their efforts to address the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a very nice way to say, "Well, I can't argue that, so I guess you win."
Re: (Score:3)
I see it more as exasperation at the fact that it doesn't matter if the rest of us have solid, fact-based arguments: we're still not going to win in this rigged system.
IOUs coming due. (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change doesn't give a damn what mankind says about it, or the attempts to avoid responsibility. It's coming for us and payback is going to be a bitch regardless of whom.
Re:IOUs coming due. (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's coming for us and payback is going to be a bitch regardless of whom.
That may be true, but it would be nice if the jackasses most directly responsible for 1) creating the problem and, 2) actively obstructing all attempts to address it, were made to pay more than other folks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The people most directly responsible for creating the problem are... all of us. The entire civilization built upon fossil fuels.
If there's blame to be had, it belongs to everyone and no lawsuits will change that.
Re: (Score:1)
> The people most directly responsible for creating the problem are..
Not all people pollute the same
An American pollutes more than a Chinese person and 2-3 Indians added together.
Re: (Score:3)
So... the people who buy ICE vehicles, attempt to block wind farms, and write HOA requirements that ban solar panels? The problem here is the responsibility is incredibly shared. But it is easier to blame one group rather than take some form of personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
> The villain is the driver, but it's easier to sue the supplier.
I'm not trying to absolve consumers' responsibility here, either. That's why I said "most directly responsible" as opposed to "solely responsible". I would, for instance, be in favor of substantially raising gasoline and diesel taxes, which haven't been touched at the federal level since 1993(?!).
We go after drug traffickers - right up and down the supply chain, even taking out [1]complicit heads of state [brave.com] - as well as going after end consumers. Why shouldn't we do the same to the "dealers" of fossil fuel
[1] https://search.brave.com/search?q=us%20captures%20maduro
Re: (Score:2)
You went after traffickers of cannabis... until it was made legal. By the same token, you can go after those who are pumping, peddling and burning fossil fuels... after you have made it illegal to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice work victim blaming.
[1]The oil companies actively conspired to destroy better competing alternatives. [wikipedia.org]
You seem to be a very special boy. I bet you truly believe in your heart fairy tales about invisible hands. When in reality, we have to cope with unconscionable concentration of wealth and insane greed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Re: (Score:2)
> Climate change doesn't give a damn what mankind says about it, or the attempts to avoid responsibility. It's coming for us and payback is going to be a bitch regardless of whom.
And moves like this are damning evidence that they know it (the companies doing the polluting and the Republicans supporting them).
Shades of cigarette companies trying for years to use the courts to deny that smoking causes cancer.
They know the damage they're doing, they know that someone will have to pay the piper so they're getting in early to make sure it's not them.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you enjoyed wealth created by carbon emissions? Well if anthropomorphic climate change is real then:
Congrats you an accomplice. I don't care about your argument that you could bought a hybrid or had more solar panels or whatever BS excuse you wanna make but for those nasty hydrocarbon lobbyists.
You admit you knew! You burned Fossil fuels anyway! Your excuses don't absolve you, any more than every armed robber might say look I would not have had terrorize and steal things from people if someone had jus
Re: (Score:1)
Cigarette companies actively mis-informed smokers about the effects of smoking (some even paid doctors to say they were healthy!), if the oil companies lied about the impact using their product had on the environment, they can be sued for lying - they can't be sued for being wrong.
But really, how can anyone alive today think that ICE vehicles don't generate greenhouse gases?
Re: (Score:1)
All you climate alarmists are gonna feel pretty retarded on your death beds when everything looks more or less the same outside as it does now.
Brought to you by (Score:1)
Brought to you by the same folks that [1]shielded gun manufacturers from any liability [wikipedia.org] for who ends up with their weapons, or what those weapons are used for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act&oldid=1333291642
Re: (Score:2)
Also good. It doesn't make much sense to blame the manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Nor does it make sense to punish someone for providing the fuel that made modern civilization possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Could we have charged Ford motor cars for the crimes their cars enabled by Bonnie & Clyde? Of course not, why are guns different?
Guns are legal products with many legal uses.
Gun manufacturers can be sued for faulty products, but it makes no sense to hold the gun manufacturer liable when someone takes a legally purchased gun and decides to commit a crime.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is asking ... (Score:2, Insightful)
How do we sue the USA for polluting our our world?
Re: (Score:1)
The same way you can charge Russia/USSR, China, India, etc...
Or is only US pollution a problem?
Re: (Score:1)
It wouldn't make more sense to sue Britan, France, and Germany for inventing the internal combustion engine? Or Russia for the Shukov process? How about the planet itself for refusing to halt the processes that create fossil fuels?
What exactly would the USA be sued for? Being one of a hundred-and-ninety-some-odd nations that produce pollution? For being one of so many nations that extract and refine petroleum? For being among the nations that builds things and uses fossil fuels? What makes the US so
Pointless law (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no man made climate change, so why do we need laws like this? Instead pass a loser pays legal system. Then when these companies prove there is no man made climate change they can get their money back.
It's easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why companies? They weren't the ones emitting were they? I mean they largely are selling their products and not actively setting them on fire inefficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why companies? They weren't the ones emitting were they?
Yeah, why should we hold accountable the corporations which sold us products on a fraudulent basis (already proven) and then lobbied against alternatives (extremely well-known, we have the receipts) to prevent us from reducing our dependence on their product?
Your thought process is facile and inadequate to reality, and "your" (borrowed) arguments are already thoroughly addressed and discredited, so making them is stupid and weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Had to log in to come say this, but looks like you beat me to it.
If climate change, especially man-made of man-aggravated, climate change doesn't exist how can we have a law limiting liability in court?
By proposing this bill the Republicans just stated that is "is" something. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Az
"He was convicted by an all-green jury..." (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be as simple as "Did they break our laws?"
Re: (Score:1)
Would that be our laws before or after the most anti-environment president in history started issuing executive orders legalizing raping the environment?
Look in the mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
I would support such a bill that narrowly focused on irreducible GHG emissions. I do not in any way support deflections of responsibility away from individual consumers who persist in knowingly buying hydrocarbons directly as well as products requiring hydrocarbon inputs knowing full well the pollution they are causing. If it is germane to sue the Exxon's of the world for their contribution to climate change it should be equally germane to sue anyone and everyone for theirs.
Also it is common knowledge ex post facto laws are explicitly unconstitutional. That anyone would even attempt to impose "retroactive liability" is an abuse of the system not far removed from DoJ's inept campaigns of retribution against Donald's political enemies.
I generally oppose all climate change related taxation where 100% of the proceeds are not spent on preventing climate change. These schemes are regressive and most allow proceeds to be placed into the general fund which clearly demonstrates unserious intent.
Re: (Score:1)
> Also it is common knowledge ex post facto laws are explicitly unconstitutional
True but this doesn't involve that. This is about civil lawsuits, which just need to prove some sort of harm covered by existant definitions of legally sanctionable harm, regardless of whether it's considered criminal. If I build a factory next door to you and spew gunk from my chimneys all over your home completely by accident, you bet you can sue despite there being no criminal activity involved and no explicit law. I've da
The right thing to do with limits. (Score:1)
Blocking nebulous blame lawsuits that are closer in kin to Butterfly Theory and Astrology than a whole done it is wise. As long as it doesnâ(TM)t stop lawsuits against direct pollutantsâ¦. You dump toxic waste into a river, you are liable, Hurricanes in Florida, and hot air in the summer, not so much.
GOP is now FTP? (Score:1)
When are Republicans officially changing their name to the "Fuck The Planet" party?
Re: (Score:1)
If you want. However, unless you convince the whole of humanity to adopt sane rational environmental policies, I don't see how demonizing one political party is going to change much.
If human induced climate change isn't real (Score:1)
If human induced climate change isn't real, why do you have to protect against something that isn't real?
Something doesn't add up.
Maybe it is real?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because it'll be a jury who decides what is real and what isn't, and who is liable. Somehow I don;t think that will lead to a lot of good verdicts.
Good (Score:2)
I bet the same people objecting to these bogus lawsuits -- which are really an attempt to legislate via the civil court system -- are also crying about how the US isn't opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Well the system should be fair. (Score:2)
The people that use fossil fuels are more liable for putting pollution in the atmosphere then the oil companies. Class action lawsuits will make every user of fossil fuels equally liable in class actions.
The larger point (Score:1)
One of the primary ways that the population can try to find fairness, redress, and compensation for wrongs incurred is through the justice system. By putting a blanket stop to that, they are doing an end run into what is really the only tangible power the people have.
No matter how you feel about the rest of this complicated matter, wiping away legal accountability en masse is a terrible precedent.
Devil's advocate (Score:1)
I know this might be an unpopular opinion. This law is more about stopping certain groups from randomly suing private businesses for the collective damage done by every business and government on Earth. Such things should be govern by laws, policies and treaties. Having random refineries sued by shady lawyers who walk away with all the money but no change in the world is just legal theft. The environment doesn't win. You don't win. You pay more for less and nothing ever changes. I see theses types lawsuits
We can do whatever (Score:2)
We'll piss in the river upstream from you where you get your drinking water, and you can't stop us...
It's hard to pin down (Score:2)
who's cows were out on the commons at night.
well i'm going down to cowtown (Score:1)
i know, let's make it illegal to prosecute crime!
Of course, that in itself is a criminal act
it doesn't make the books but it does inevitably get punished all the same
Re: (Score:1)
Even he wonders why he's in charge of the agency.
[1]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org]
Yet numerous cult members (some of them with medical degrees for fucks sake) confirmed this guy.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/watch-health-secretary-rfk-jr-says-he-doesnt-think-people-should-take-medical-advice-from-him
Re: (Score:1)
The people that generated the greenhouse gases want to sue the oil companies for selling them the raw materials they put in their cars to generate greenhouse gases... The oil companies don't generate the greenhouse gases, their customers do.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same companies that maximize profit by maximize the release of greenhouse gases? So their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders is to poison the planet? Are those the companies you're defending?
Re: (Score:2)
Silly troll, -1 is as low as it will let us mod you. Believe me, if I could give you a lower score, I would!
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is normal... over the course of thousands of years. Climate change occurring within a normal human lifespan is unprecedented.
This is what evil looks like (Score:3, Informative)
About as moral as giving people that poison food and water immunity. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:1)
Fat hogs voted for evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad part is this could be reversed if someone offered dear leader a bigger more shiny award.
Re:This is what evil looks like (Score:5, Insightful)
> The sad part is this could be reversed if someone offered dear leader a bigger more shiny award.
Not sure, he got the FIFA world peace prize and still started WW3
He promised no new wars
He complained a lot about previous wars
Some people can't help it, they just like wars and killing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the FIFA peace prize is a made up token meant to eliminate friction with an ego maniac?
Re:This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:2, Insightful)
We all cashed in on fossil fuels together—every last one of us typing on plastic keyboards in climate-controlled rooms, sipping coffee shipped on diesel trucks, while posting our righteous fury on an internet that runs on coal-and-gas-powered servers. That “evil” black gold dragged humanity out of the mud, gave us antibiotics, airplanes, refrigeration, the entire industrial base that lets virtue-signaling peeps even exist at their current living standard instead of hoeing turnips by candle
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference in digging something up from the ground, processing it and using it for a long time via either longevity or recycling than just burning it up in smoke and never getting it back.
Re: This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:1)
I guess if that helps you sleep better at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you can't opt out of consuming fossil fuels by only focusing on materials made with hydrocarbons. You are directly or indirectly consuming fossil fuels every time you ride in a gas car, eat food grown with fertilizer, fly on an airplane, turn on a light switch, or buy something shipped via truck. If we want to file climate lawsuits, every single human being could be named a defendant.
Re: This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:2)
Now that's what I call an inconvenient truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be unfamiliar with the law. Lawsuits for climate change essentially need a) a significant individual contribution and b) reasonable alternatives being available but unused. For example, if somebody keeps running a dirty industrial process to maximize their profit while incurring global damage that negates all these gains, they are a target.
But I think you are not interested in facts. You are interested in spreading FUD. Which makes you either an useful idiot or scum that supports the evil done.
Re:This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:4, Interesting)
Fossil fuels [1]addicted [bloomberg.com] us, [2]fattened [washingtonpost.com] us, [3]sickened [fullerton.edu] us, [4]endangered [thewalrus.ca] us, [5]imprisoned [medium.com] us, and [6]decimated [reddit.com] our [7]cities [ou.edu].
And the pimp/enslaver/prison guard says, "you never had it so good, you should be more appreciative!"
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-30/the-neuroscience-of-car-dependence
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3062-2004May30.html
[3] http://calstate.fullerton.edu/news/2008/091-air-pollution-study.html
[4] http://thewalrus.ca/me-want-more-square-footage/
[5] https://medium.com/illumination/american-children-are-under-house-arrest-be5375c9deb5
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/dd51q3/sad/
[7] http://iqc.ou.edu/urbanchange
Re:This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:4, Insightful)
While that may be true it also enriched us, improved the quality of our lives, and all the while many of the downsides were brought about not by those companies, but rather the end user's hunger for the product. Even now we know the incredible dangers and yet people will happily pour oil into their cars, drive excessively instead of walking, buying isolated homes in the suburbs, and we're still flattening cities to make space for parking.
At some point we need to stop pointing at others and except some personal fucking responsibility.
Also sidenote: Many of the problems you list are some how uniquely American despite the group you are criticising being multinational companies that operated literally in every civilized (and several uncivilised) corners of the world. How do you rationalise that?
Re: (Score:2)
> At some point we need to stop pointing at others and except some personal fucking responsibility.
I agree but this is very much related to the second point
> Many of the problems you list are some how uniquely American
This is American's refusing to take responsibility because, ironically, they keep voting for the self-proclaimed "party of personal responsibility" because to American's that means eschewing any sense of social responsibility. One party gives a permission structure to ignore the issue because that is the "personal responsibility" they sell, only to yourself and nobody else.
Actual personal responsibility would be voting for the party who accepts the p
Re:This is what evil looks like - OH PLEASE (Score:4, Insightful)
> Even if all of that were true, oil companies are still not solely to blame for it all. And what would be the point in suing them?
Same as the tobacco companies.
> Also, there's no justice in it.
Good thing the corporations that totally knew what they were doing have you to stick up for them. Everyone needs a nice throat job once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I just see you as part of the evil, either via being an useful idiot or being entirely fine with the damage done.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you are mentally challenged and do not even understand simple things.