Science/Environment Should fossil fuel producers be held liable for climate change?

Remove this Banner Ad

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,205
100,090
AFL Club
Hawthorn

It's become clear that these companies knew the damage their products were causing and not only did they not do anything about it, they actively tried to prevent and discredit people from taking action against them. Should they be held liable under either civil or criminal code for the damage they have knowingly caused?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
5,884
6,610
AFL Club
Sydney
The Sackler family among others have been held responsible for knowingly pushing dangerous addictive drugs, why shouldn't the same line be taken for fossil fuel companies? It's the same scenario with them, they have knowingly peddled products that are harmful.
A better comparison would be Tobacco companies
 

Aristotle Pickett

Premium Platinum
Oct 19, 2020
4,958
9,282
AFL Club
Richmond
Absolutely, they are already being sued all over the world.
I think jail sentences for CEO's is the best option.
It's incomprehensible that these people can cover up information and continue to destroy the planet.
 

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 19, 2008
15,922
17,426
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
LUL what a stupid ass comment

Next time your house is on fire I'll tell you that exact line
Pretty sure the ocean is still there and undamaged.

Can you tell me what has been damaged as a result of the pipeline rupture?

It looks pretty cool I suppose.
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
5,884
6,610
AFL Club
Sydney
You don't usually get a choice where your power comes from.
You're analogy is quite wrong.
There needs to be laws to stop misinformation in the media.
We need new laws to stop Murdoch 'journalists ' like Bolt deliberately spreading misinformation for personal profit.
Even the majority who accept the adverse impacts of oil and coal continue to use the products derived from that on a daily, if not hourly basis.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,205
100,090
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Even the majority who accept the adverse impacts of oil and coal continue to use the products derived from that on a daily, if not hourly basis.
It's not a matter of whether we still benefit from these things, that's undeniable. The point is that these companies knew the damage that their product caused and not only continued to promote them, they actively conspired to suppress alternative power sources that left a considerably smaller carbon footprint.
A better comparison would be Tobacco companies
That's a good example and the oil companies have followed the tobacco companies playbook almost to the letter in trying to distance themselves from the consequences of their product. Do you not think it's reasonable that we hold them to account in the same way we did the tobacco companies?
 

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Dec 12, 2003
49,025
32,045
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
Pretty sure the ocean is still there and undamaged.

Can you tell me what has been damaged as a result of the pipeline rupture?
Yes, ocean was on fire and it's clearly "undamaged", lads, because you have 0 IQ

Why did I even bother responding to a Trump simp who trolls about gun violence? Keep celebrating catastrophe in your basement to make yourself feel less pathetic
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 19, 2008
15,922
17,426
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
The pipeline was state owned by the Mexican government.

Whose head should roll or is it only private companies that can do wrong?
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,205
100,090
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The pipeline was state owned by the Mexican government.

Whose head should roll or is it only private companies that can do wrong?
Of course States should pay as well. We're about to feel the consequences of our lack of action on decarbonisation when a climate tariff gets imposed on us which will essentially be a carbon tax that we won't set the rate of and won't reap the dividends of.
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
5,884
6,610
AFL Club
Sydney
It's not a matter of whether we still benefit from these things, that's undeniable. The point is that these companies knew the damage that their product caused and not only continued to promote them, they actively conspired to suppress alternative power sources that left a considerably smaller carbon footprint.
My point is not what the companies knew or did, it is what your average person who knows the harm fossil fuels do, but have continued to use the products to their own advantage despite knowing the harm being done and the use of petroleum everyday products.


That's a good example and the oil companies have followed the tobacco companies playbook almost to the letter in trying to distance themselves from the consequences of their product. Do you not think it's reasonable that we hold them to account in the same way we did the tobacco companies?
Probably hold them account based on what they did know and the disinformation they gave out, would be my first thought. We wont be able to give up coal or oil for quite a while without giving up a significant part of our current lifestyle and i doubt many are going to do that
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,205
100,090
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I agree that we need to make lifestyle changes and that that will be more difficult for some than others but why should that burden be left up to us alone? Again it comes back to the producers being forced to take some responsibility for what they've peddled in bad faith year after year.
 

Balls In

Norm Smith Medallist
May 25, 2018
9,771
14,608
AFL Club
West Coast
Ah yeah and who gets to demonstrate the percentage of climate change caused by each producer, the effect on the planet and the monetary value of their effect? Who approaches China and India with this?
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
70,375
128,927
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Ah yeah and who gets to demonstrate the percentage of climate change caused by each producer, the effect on the planet and the monetary value of their effect? Who approaches China and India with this?
you are aware systems to track this already exist, and have been used in forestry and fisheries for years (inc in India and China)
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
59,898
65,522
AFL Club
West Coast
The total CO2 emissions from the combustion of a litre of petrol are something like 70% burning it and 30% producing it.

It's a balancing act. Most people can't afford electric cars (they aren't green at this point anyway, nor is there charging infrastructure at a practical level) so the options are petrol and diesel. But if I'm prepared to drive a Toyota LandCruiser to the shops and back and have the air con running 24/7 at home (I'm not) should I really be telling oil and coal producers what to do?

We already pay 40c ish a litre in excise plus GST which goes towards road infrastructure and state pork barrelling respectively. The usual suspects whinge about "mining subsidies" but both miners and farmers are treated differently because the govt deems that road maintenance should be paid by road users. The environmental impact has never really been a consideration in fuel excise. Which in 2021 just seems dumb.

I'd be OK with fuel excise being increased and the proceeds going towards something specific and not just the general purse. I'd also be happy with a carbon price being applied throughout the product chain. But I think the sort of people on this board just want companies to pay money to the govt while they don't change their own lifestyles.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,205
100,090
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The total CO2 emissions from the combustion of a litre of petrol are something like 70% burning it and 30% producing it.

It's a balancing act. Most people can't afford electric cars (they aren't green at this point anyway, nor is there charging infrastructure at a practical level) so the options are petrol and diesel. But if I'm prepared to drive a Toyota LandCruiser to the shops and back and have the air con running 24/7 at home (I'm not) should I really be telling oil and coal producers what to do?

We already pay 40c ish a litre in excise plus GST which goes towards road infrastructure and state pork barrelling respectively. The usual suspects whinge about "mining subsidies" but both miners and farmers are treated differently because the govt deems that road maintenance should be paid by road users. The environmental impact has never really been a consideration in fuel excise. Which in 2021 just seems dumb.

I'd be OK with fuel excise being increased and the proceeds going towards something specific and not just the general purse. I'd also be happy with a carbon price being applied throughout the product chain. But I think the sort of people on this board just want companies to pay money to the govt while they don't change their own lifestyles.
People are changing their behaviour constantly there's more awareness than ever that we aren't living sustainably but ultimately there's only so much that we can do and we can't be expected to bear all the burden while companies that continue to supply these high pollution products do so at great profit with no incentive to stop.
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
59,898
65,522
AFL Club
West Coast
People are changing their behaviour constantly there's more awareness than ever that we aren't living sustainably but ultimately there's only so much that we can do and we can't be expected to bear all the burden while companies that continue to supply these high pollution products do so at great profit with no incentive to stop.
No one is saying consumers need to bear the entire burden. As I said, burning a litre of petrol releases more CO2 than drilling it, refining it, transporting it etc. combined. The burden needs to be shared. If you simply made it a consumer problem there would be zero incentive for fossil fuel companies to change. If you push the full burden onto producers they'll just pass on the cost.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad