Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

Let me try this way. What did you mean when you said "the fossil fuel companies are amazingly well placed to pivot their operations."

[Jacob]

Because I object to the political left's agenda to demonize for profit business.

I don't know if you consider me on the political left, but let me go on record here: I'm in a for profit business. I spend most of my time at work looking at ways to increase profits. I do not demonize for profit business. I'm a big fan of profit, even if my politics tend to prefer a higher degree of redistribution of than you prefer.

Because I think it is a logical fallacy assign all the blame for climate change to big oil when at the very least it is a two part process: one actor to drill and pump oil and another to burn it.  It whitewashes the consumer and could lead to the thinking that if big oil (or small oil for that matter) is sufficiently punished climate change will be magically solved.

I do not subscribe to that logical fallacy. I KNOW that punishing the oil industry will not magically solve climate change whatever degree that "punishment" takes.

Now, I do think that some kind of effective action on climate change could look like "punishment" to big oil - and feel like it for its investors - but I'm not particularly interested in it as punishment, only in terms of how effective it is in combating climate change.

Separate from that... I do think that the big oil - that is Exxon, BP, Shell and potentially others - have engaged in active malfeance on this. They identified the risk of climate change early (good) and used this to poison the well as much as possible by creating the climate change denialist movement (terrible) and continue with business as usual (which got us to where we are, so not good). That's a fact as far as I'm concerned, and pointing that out is not "heaping blame on oil companies" as I understand the phrase (but maybe you disagree?).

Now IF punishing big oil companies for this malfeance does help address global climate change (perhaps because the "punishment" drives a bigger shift away from fossil fuels) then I think it's great. But if the punishment has no such consequence, then I'm fairly neutral about it.

Note: I don't believe there's a magical result that will automatically solve things by "punishing" the relevant oil companies. The important part is the solution, not the "punishment".

Note 2: Insofar as "punishment" is relevant, it should be applied to specific oil companies (and their successors) not the industry as a whole. If you and BB start an oil exploration and drilling company tomorrow, you should not be punished for Exxon, BP, and Shell's actions 50 years ago.

Note 3: The important thing is taking action that addresses climate change, and if that harms big oil companies in some way that's perfectly fine. But harming big oil is not the priority.

At some point the great unwashed masses will have to experience pain, shortage, inconvenience and higher cost in order to fix climate change.

Very likely, yes. But this is unlikely to happen through independent consumer choices, moral hectoring or not. It'll require concerted government action (action that is rendered less likely through big oil and oil billionaires funding politicians opposed to addressing climate change in any way, especially in the US).

[Barrister]

Separate from that... I do think that the big oil - that is Exxon, BP, Shell and potentially others - have engaged in active malfeance on this. They identified the risk of climate change early (good) and used this to poison the well as much as possible by creating the climate change denialist movement (terrible) and continue with business as usual (which got us to where we are, so not good). That's a fact as far as I'm concerned, and pointing that out is not "heaping blame on oil companies" as I understand the phrase (but maybe you disagree?).

Now IF punishing big oil companies for this malfeance does help address global climate change (perhaps because the "punishment" drives a bigger shift away from fossil fuels) then I think it's great. But if the punishment has no such consequence, then I'm fairly neutral about it.

OK, so I don't have all the answers here, but your post doesn't sit well with me (as a matter of public policy, not personal animosity).

The first definition I could find for malfeasance was

wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

In taking steps to minimize or downplay the risk of climate change were oil companies engaged in "wrongdoing"?  By funding lobby groups was that "misconduct"?

I don't think it is.

You seem to perhaps take a more broader view of malfeasance - perhaps "conduct that is harmful to the planet"?

But the problem is we live in a democracy and people are free to support or oppose different public policies even if you (and I!) might they they're objectively horrible. 

Just to think of something you and might find common ground on - I think US "open carry" gun laws are terrible.  The idea people can just walk around with AR-15s strapped to their back in urban areas is just asking for trouble and directly lead to increased gun deaths.

But nevertheless I wouldn't say that gun companies, or the NRA, who support such policies, are engaged in "malfeasance", and wouldn't want them to be punished without there being something more.

[mongers]

Opened the back door this morning and the very first thing I saw was a dying bumblebee at my feet, it expired within a few moment before my eyes.

Now there isn't any arable land for good many fields around, it's all mainly pasture/meadows here, so what might have killed it, a virus, maybe some anti-insect treatment used by a local garden owner?

What ever the cause a reminder of the massive toll insect life is suffering in our 'modern' world, not just climate change but environmental disaster is  overtaking us. 

[The Brain]

I don't immediately see how it would be a responsibility of Big Fossil to push for other forms of energy. Was there a direct legal requirement to do so? Otherwise it sounds like something that would harm shareholder value, not increase it.

Determining environmental protection laws and regulations that enhance society's ability to develop in a sustainable manner seems like a government responsibility. That the wolves have taken steps to stop or delay a Sheep Protection Act cannot reasonably be held against them I don't think. Governments were aware of the climate problem many decades ago and often did nothing or indeed actively suppressed nuclear power. In democratic countries the people will have to look in the mirror to find the responsible party.

Now have Big Fossil acted in ways that are quite harmful to society? My impression is yes. But if that in itself is cause for punishment then many organizations of all kinds (companies, churches, political parties etc etc) will have to be punished. I think such a principle would be unsound.

[crazy canuck]

I don't immediately see how it would be a responsibility of Big Fossil to push for other forms of energy. Was there a direct legal requirement to do so? Otherwise it sounds like something that would harm shareholder value, not increase it.

Determining environmental protection laws and regulations that enhance society's ability to develop in a sustainable manner seems like a government responsibility. That the wolves have taken steps to stop or delay a Sheep Protection Act cannot reasonably be held against them I don't think. Governments were aware of the climate problem many decades ago and often did nothing or indeed actively suppressed nuclear power. In democratic countries the people will have to look in the mirror to find the responsible party.

Now have Big Fossil acted in ways that are quite harmful to society? My impression is yes. But if that in itself is cause for punishment then many organizations of all kinds (companies, churches, political parties etc etc) will have to be punished. I think such a principle would be unsound.

The comparison with the tobacco companies is fairly compelling.  They knew, as late as the 70s, that what they were doing would create climate warming.  Their predictions in the 70s were very accurate.  With that knowledge they engaged in a purposeful campaign of disinformation to undermine independent scientists who were starting to raise warnings about the issue.

There are a number of ways that fact pattern can be fit into a class action law suit for damages.  Damages, which I might add, which would make the successful suits against tobacco look miniscule by comparison.

The one small silver lining here is that anyone on the right who still advocates for self regulation will be laughed out of the room.  Well, at least a room full of sane people.

[The Brain]

If purposeful disinformation to further a harmful agenda is cause for punishment then many many organizations are up for punishment.

[crazy canuck]

If purposeful disinformation to further a harmful agenda is cause for punishment then many many organizations are up for punishment.

Yes, there have been many successful law suits in that regard.

[Valmy]

If purposeful disinformation to further a harmful agenda is cause for punishment then many many organizations are up for punishment.

Indeed. But it is a civil offense so they have to be sued I believe. That takes some doing to successfully sue a large and powerful organization.

[Josquius]

I don't immediately see how it would be a responsibility of Big Fossil to push for other forms of energy. Was there a direct legal requirement to do so? Otherwise it sounds like something that would harm shareholder value, not increase it.

Determining environmental protection laws and regulations that enhance society's ability to develop in a sustainable manner seems like a government responsibility. That the wolves have taken steps to stop or delay a Sheep Protection Act cannot reasonably be held against them I don't think. Governments were aware of the climate problem many decades ago and often did nothing or indeed actively suppressed nuclear power. In democratic countries the people will have to look in the mirror to find the responsible party.

Now have Big Fossil acted in ways that are quite harmful to society? My impression is yes. But if that in itself is cause for punishment then many organizations of all kinds (companies, churches, political parties etc etc) will have to be punished. I think such a principle would be unsound.

See also: Nestle. They've seen the writing on the wall as far as their core junk food business goes and are trying to diversify towards nutrition, health, and wellness.
There's a very good argument that they no doubt recognise themselves given all the green washing that pivoting away from fossil fuels and towards green energy is how the major oil companies survive beyond the short term.

Nobody wants to 'punish' companies. I don't know where this is coming from.

[crazy canuck]

I don't immediately see how it would be a responsibility of Big Fossil to push for other forms of energy. Was there a direct legal requirement to do so? Otherwise it sounds like something that would harm shareholder value, not increase it.

Determining environmental protection laws and regulations that enhance society's ability to develop in a sustainable manner seems like a government responsibility. That the wolves have taken steps to stop or delay a Sheep Protection Act cannot reasonably be held against them I don't think. Governments were aware of the climate problem many decades ago and often did nothing or indeed actively suppressed nuclear power. In democratic countries the people will have to look in the mirror to find the responsible party.

Now have Big Fossil acted in ways that are quite harmful to society? My impression is yes. But if that in itself is cause for punishment then many organizations of all kinds (companies, churches, political parties etc etc) will have to be punished. I think such a principle would be unsound.

See also: Nestle. They've seen the writing on the wall as far as their core junk food business goes and are trying to diversify towards nutrition, health, and wellness.
There's a very good argument that they no doubt recognise themselves given all the green washing that pivoting away from fossil fuels and towards green energy is how the major oil companies survive beyond the short term.

Nobody wants to 'punish' companies. I don't know where this is coming from.

Awards of punitive damages for acts of intentional deceit are punishment - it's in the name 

[Jacob]

Looks like the drought in the Horn of Africa is one of the worst ever - with a failed harvest and farm animals dying in large numbers as well. It is also - apparently - very clear that this drought is driven by humean created climate change.

So... we'll probably see more of this, with significant areas potentially becoming unable to support the populations that live there. I expect that as the people become unable to survive in their home countries they'll try to move elsewhere... so I guess we're looking at a period of mass migration in the upcoming decades.

[Richard Hakluyt]

This seems inevitable and we are making no real preparations for it.

[Josquius]

Yes, bad times afoot. Sadly the worst hit countries will also be amongst the poorest to begin with.
There's a lot that can potentially be done to mitigate things, especially with advancing technology, but they won't be able to afford it themselves.

[Syt]

It's not all doom and gloom. Sen. Johnson (R-Wisconsin) points out the bright side: climate change will be positive for his home state.

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-johnson-says-climate-change-beneficial-1796937