SF sues oil companies because of climate change

[nwdiver]

That's sort of the line of thinking I had also when I read this. I don't doubt that the refineries contribute to air pollution, but are they entirely responsible for global warming? IF this were even an argument, I'd think ICE manufacturers would be more responsible for pollution than the oil companies as its the spent gases of an engine, not the oil or gasoline/diesel itself, that is the contributor.

ICE manufacturers didn't find out AGW was a threat then lie about it for >20 years.

Penalizing the oil companies with huge fines will only raise the price of everything else (by pushing down the cost of the fines to the consumer) and further lower the quality of life for those who can least afford it.

That's why we need a revenue neutral carbon tax. If it's structured correctly you raise the cost of fossil fuels and ensure low income people get help with the temporary spike in energy costs. I think an ideal Carbon tax would be ~$0.20/kWh and ~$2/gal. The funds collected would be distributed inversely to income. HUGE incentive to stop burning oil, gas and coal. The poor don't get hurt. win-win.

It's lawsuits or a carbon tax. Pick one.

 

[Tcpsoft]

Also, did SF zoning officials approve the building of any gas stations in the city? Obviously yes, so now they they have no choice but to sue themselves for encouraging the problems of big oil.

I'd be curious to know the number of pending building permits for gas stations in SF today and how this will pan out going forward.

 

[FlatSix911]

This lawsuit is PC nonsense ... local municipalities have no jurisdiction in these maters.
The city of San Francisco has also reaped huge financial benefits from Chevron headquarters over the last hundred years.
The entire East Bay including Oakland and Richmond also benefit from 10.000 plus jobs and income from State and local taxes.

Chevron Corporation - Wikipedia

Chevron's corporate headquarters are located in a 92-acre campus in San Ramon, California. The company moved there from its earlier headquarters at 555 Market Street in San Francisco, California, where it was located since its inception in 1879.

 

[arcus]

If the companies is question would invest a chunk of their fat profits into sustainable energy for the future there would be no need for lawsuits. I find it hard to believe that multi-trillion industry is incapable of either helping the existing technology to be more efficient and widespread (batteries, solar, wind) or be on track to develop new, sustainable forms of providing energy for both transportation and the grid itself. As it is, there is no incentive to try any harder instead of maximizing profits with nothing in return. They could be equally profitable providing clean energy! So, maybe a lawsuit or two will help to steer it in the right direction.

 

[skitown]

No one forced smokers to smoke. Yet the tobacco majors paid hundreds of billions. They manipulated the system and lied to consumers about the dangers of their product. Exactly like the oil companies.

I think this is the issue that will be exploited. The lying and burying of their own scientific research on the subject is what ultimately caught Big Tobacco out; not so much the actual damages the products caused. The latter can be defended with 'personal responsibility' - and I'm cool with that myself. Big Oil followed Big Tobacco's playbook it seems w/the lying and burying of their own scientific research, so it's logical that lawsuits along these lines would follow. The playbook continues....

 

[nwdiver]

If the companies is question would invest a chunk of their fat profits into sustainable energy for the future there would be no need for lawsuits.

They tried that... most oil companies dabbled in Solar decades ago but quickly gave it up because it was a rounding error compared to oil profits. Fighting Climate Change is something that the free market is clearly unable to do on its own.

IIRC SunPower is the only one left. Which is owned by Total. I'm sure the fact that Total is owned by the French government has nothing to do with the fact that SunPower wasn't sold off for parts years ago....

 

[FlatSix911]

Remember that we will all need energy from hydrocarbons for a few more years until we can transition to renewable sources.

 

[nwdiver]

Remember that we will all need energy from hydrocarbons for a few more years until we can transition to renewable sources.

I don't think anyone is really disputing that... but wouldn't you agree that there should be a heavy surcharge on those hydrocarbons to accelerate the transition?

 

[Tcpsoft]

ICE manufacturers didn't find out AGW was a threat then lie about it for >20 years.

I wasn't there so I don't know about that firsthand. But, did the engine manufacturers stop making ICE engines when they found out? Did people stop buying when they found out? What we do get are companies investing in solar, wind, ocean and alternative power to start the evolution away from fossil fuel.

That's why we need a revenue neutral carbon tax. If it's structured correctly you raise the cost of fossil fuels and ensure low income people get help with the temporary spike in energy costs. I think an ideal Carbon tax would be ~$0.20/kWh and ~$2/gal. The funds collected would be distributed inversely to income. HUGE incentive to stop burning oil, gas and coal. The poor don't get hurt. win-win.

It's lawsuits or a carbon tax. Pick one.

I'd be all in for an additional California tax, just don't make my California dairy cheese more expensive...

"If it's structured correctly..." That's the big challenge. Unfortunately, I don't think a tax would ever stop at the pump. Higher fuel costs would be reflected at the grocery store, pensions and retirement plans with petroleum stocks would tank, public transportation costs go up, increased property tax to pay for the additional cost to support police cars and public officials... it goes on and on. Nobody wants to be the one to suck up the additional cost so it'll get passed down as far as it can.

In the end, I'm a huge outdoors person and I want to see the environment protected and preserved for generations so they can enjoy what we have - yes, even San Francisco. What's the best way to do that? I don't know but the oil companies will find a way to avoid directly paying whatever fines or settlements.

 

[Tcpsoft]

I'd be all in for an additional California tax, just don't make my California dairy cheese more expensive...

"If it's structured correctly..." That's the big challenge. Unfortunately, I don't think a tax would ever stop at the pump. Higher fuel costs would be reflected at the grocery store, pensions and retirement plans with petroleum stocks would tank, public transportation costs go up, increased property tax to pay for the additional cost to support police cars and public officials... it goes on and on. Nobody wants to be the one to suck up the additional cost so it'll get passed down as far as it can.

In the end, I'm a huge outdoors person and I want to see the environment protected and preserved for generations so they can enjoy what we have - yes, even San Francisco. What's the best way to do that? I don't know but the oil companies will find a way to avoid directly paying whatever fines or settlements.

PS - still learning how to quote and reply here. There's one quick reply in the first quote....

 

[nwdiver]

Unfortunately, I don't think a tax would ever stop at the pump.

That's part of the point. The cost of EVERYTHING that uses oil, coal or gas would rise... until those users wised up and sought alternatives. And alternatives would now be cheaper by comparison. As Alternatives are used more the costs fall further due to economies of scale.

A revenue neutral carbon tax has two goals. Make fossil fuels more expensive and lessen the pain on low income people by redistributing the funds collected to them. Someone making $25k/yr might have to pay $500 more per year in fuel costs but if they get $700/yr in Carbon dividends they'll be just fine. Someone making $100k/yr driving a H2 isn't gonna be happy... maybe they need to chose a more responsible vehicle. Which is the objective.

I don't know but the oil companies will find a way to avoid directly paying whatever fines or settlements.

That's fine. The objective isn't to make the oil companies pay. It's to decrease our use of fossil fuels. They'll pass the costs on to their customers which will motivate them to seek cheaper alternatives.

 

[kort677]

I don't think anyone is really disputing that... but wouldn't you agree that there should be a heavy surcharge on those hydrocarbons to accelerate the transition?

to what purpose? should be become like the socialist european nations that fund their socialist policies by heavily taxing fuels? how well has that worked to lower consumption?

 

[nwdiver]

to what purpose? should be become like the socialist european nations that fund their socialist policies by heavily taxing fuels? how well has that worked to lower consumption?

Well... the US uses twice as much oil per capita as EU countries... so it sure appears to have worked pretty well.

If you make something more expensive people tend to purchase less of it... especially if there are alternatives.

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

 

[kort677]

Well... the US uses twice as much oil per capita as EU countries... so it sure appears to have worked pretty well.

If you make something more expensive people tend to purchase less of it... especially of there are alternatives.

that's a classic non sequitur, and that chart must have been made in your fantasy land, it certainly isn't factual

 

[nwdiver]

that's a classic non sequitur, and that chart must have been made in your fantasy land, it certainly isn't factual

No... that's classic economics.

LOL... Are you proposing that the fact the sale of more efficient vehicles goes up and down with the price of gas is a coincidence?

I'll ask again....

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

 

[Stirfelt]

It's not only about gasoline and diesel for automobiles and trucks. Most of us like to take an occasionally airplane trip.

A preponderance of products that we consume daily, derive either directly from crude oil, or utilize hydrocarbons to heat and shape a product during the manufacturing process. The list is almost endless, from fertilizers, to rotary kilns to make cement.
It is hard to name a consumer product that is not in some way, related to petrochemicals either directly, or as a bi-product.
Not finally, because the list is near endless, but crude oil is easily transported, stored, and set-aside in underground strategic reserves as a hedge against manmade and natural disasters.

 

[nwdiver]

It's not only about gasoline and diesel for automobiles and trucks. Most of us like to take an occasionally airplane trip.

A preponderance of products that we consume daily, derive either directly from crude oil, or utilize hydrocarbons to heat and shape a product during the manufacturing process. The list is almost endless, from fertilizers, to rotary kilns to make cement.
It is hard to name a consumer product that is not in some way, related to petrochemicals either directly, or as a bi-product.
Not finally, because the list is near endless, but crude oil is easily transported, stored, and set-aside in underground strategic reserves as a hedge against manmade and natural disasters.

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

 

[FlatSix911]

A revenue neutral carbon tax has two goals.
Make fossil fuels more expensive and lessen the pain on low income people by redistributing the funds collected to them. Someone making $25k/yr might have to pay $500 more per year in fuel costs but if they get $700/yr in Carbon dividends they'll be just fine. Someone making $100k/yr driving a H2 isn't gonna be happy... maybe they need to chose a more responsible vehicle. Which is the objective.

More nonsense ... this is really about Social Engineering and income redistribution.

 

[nwdiver]

More nonsense ... this is really about Social Engineering and income redistribution.

Gotta love the dichotomy...

'We need a Carbon Tax'
'That'll hurt the poor!'

'Ok, we'll distribute the carbon tax to the poor'
'That's social engineering!'

*sigh* I'll ask again....

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

 

[FlatSix911]

The free market always wins ... Economic forces are already driving the transition to renewables.