SF sues oil companies because of climate change

[SSedan]

Tesla is trying to use the free market by building vehicles people actually want. How many people "want" a Leaf?
Sure there are a few but most do it to feel they are doing good for the environment.

How many people WANT to drive a MS? A heck of a lot more than can afford them, hence the M3 backlog.


Far as the comment about fossil fuels being designed to cause climate change, keep it up, that lunacy is why more people are pushing back against environmentalism. Fossil fuels were in use long long before scientists began lying about their effects, remember 40 years ago fossil fuels were going to cause an ice age, then warming, now since that is playing out as "predicted" they changed the tagline to climate change. To view their word today as gospel is wildly ignorant given how they have to change the prediction every decade or so. They have been using climate predictions as scare tactics for over 4 decades.

Scientists are guilty of as much fraud as the oil companies, let's sue them too.

We need to treat the planet better, we need to make more use of solar in particular.

Now those of you who believe in lines like "designed to cause climate change" are going to begin cursing me for the above, but in the last year I have spent over $75k on things that reduce my carbon footprint, and my MS was less than $50k of that and I spend a lot of time talking to friends and neighbors about how great electric cars can drive and how the infrastructure is a LOT better than they think it is.

When the state changes registration fees so I have to pay road tax for my electric car, I am OK with that, you wont see me come here crying.

Try and be reasonable and thoughtful and in doing so maybe inspire someone on the fence rather than just fire up those who already agree with you.

 

[nwdiver]

40 years ago fossil fuels were going to cause an ice age, then warming, now since that is playing out as "predicted" they changed the tagline to climate change. To view their word today as gospel is wildly ignorant given how they have to change the prediction every decade or so.

*sigh*

LOL.... are you seriously bringing that canard up? Was there a consensus? NO

'Some' scientists say a lot of things. The message (the consensus) hasn't changed in ~120 years. Even when 'some' scientists were saying we were headed toward an Ice age that was based on SO2 blocking sunlight more than CO2 trapped heat. That issue was resolved with the clean air act.

From @drees source;

'A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming'

'Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts.'

 

[kort677]

 

[nwdiver]

LOL... please tell me where the science changed...

Year: Consensus
1896: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1900: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1905: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1910: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1915: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1920: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1930: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1940: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1950: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1960: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1970: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1980: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
1990: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
2000: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
2010: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
2015: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.
Today: CO2 Blocks IR, More CO2 means a warmer planet.

 

[FlatSix911]

Did any of those people/organizations discover that what thes were doing was harmful then lie about the harm?

So it is really not about the effects, it's about a cover-up?

 

[nwdiver]

So it is really not about the effects, it's about a cover-up?

Google tobacco litigation. This is no different. The lies expose them to liability.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Incorrect, a false comparison ... compare a $35K Model 3 to a BMW 3 series



Incorrect again ... ICE vehicles have enjoyed massive economic subsidies for the last 100 years

How would I compare a Model 3 in a free market?
There'd be no compliance cars, so Toyota and Mercedes would have had no reason to buy anything from or invest in Tesla. Tesla also would not have had any ZEV credit revenues to keep it going. And there wouldn't have been any free government loans to help it get to the Model S.

 

[Stirfelt]

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

Referring back to my previous post ... without petroleum products, we will not have roads to drive our EV on, nor plastics, nor synthetic materials, nor fertilizer, nor any of the other products that make it possible to produce sufficient food, health and comfort to our expanding population. I suspect, that if we were forced back to an agricultural society powered by beast of burden (like in the 1800's except with todays populations) horse and oxen manure would absolutely overwhelm the eco system.

No ... as a nation .... we are not sitting back and doing nothing.
We have made tremendous progress, and will continue to do so.
Here in the west, solar systems are expanding, private companies are investing in energy saving technology; EV chargers are being installed on privately owned residential and commercial building; geothermal, hydro, and wind generators are all taking part of the energy burden from fossil fuels.

Visit Las Vegas and the surrounding area sometimes. Enormous solar farms are in operation to the west to the south; hydro plants generate power from the south east, and wherever there is a location that the prevailing wind blows ... there are multitudes of wind turbines.

 

[nwdiver]

No ... as a nation .... we are not sitting back and doing nothing.
We have made tremendous progress, and will continue to do so.

The US has made 'tremendous' progress? Really? The average fuel economy DECLINED last year. EV sales are STILL <1%. Meanwhile in the civilized world >40% of cars sold in Norway are electric....

Wake up.

without petroleum products, we will not have roads to drive our EV on, nor plastics, nor synthetic materials, nor fertilizer, nor any of the other products that make it possible to produce sufficient food, health and comfort to our expanding population.

Did I post something opposing petroleum 'products'? No. Only fuels.

 

[TaoJones]

One of the ironies inherent with this topic is that even after a significant (and clearly necessary) reduction in non-military fuel usage (cars and intermodal - trucks, trains, ships within 25 miles of any US coast), the fossil fuel industries will be juuuuuuust fine.

Giving up gasoline is one thing. Giving up plastic? Oh, no you DI-int...

There's a local movement afoot hereabouts to reduce plastic utensils. The outcry is just beginning. After all, people had to give up styrofoam take-out containers and some but not all plastic bags this past year. Oh, the horror.

/wry smile

 

[LosAltosChuck]

Let’s posit that everything said about oil-industry caused climate change is true. San Francisco, of all cities on the planet, has the *least* standing in any case brought. Hurricanes? Doesn’t hit ‘em. Warmer weather? That would be a blessing. Rising sea levels? Except for the man-made fake land around the Marina District, etc., not an issue. (I don’t have a lot of sympathy for folks who made new land not thinking about sea level rise, regardless of the pace of the rise.)

Regardless of where one stands on climate change, the actions of the San Francisco city council are ridiculous, as usual.

 

[nwdiver]

Let’s posit that everything said about oil-industry caused climate change is true. San Francisco, of all cities on the planet, has the *least* standing in any case brought. Hurricanes? Doesn’t hit ‘em. Warmer weather? That would be a blessing. Rising sea levels? Except for the man-made fake land around the Marina District, etc., not an issue. (I don’t have a lot of sympathy for folks who made new land not thinking about sea level rise, regardless of the pace of the rise.)

Regardless of where one stands on climate change, the actions of the San Francisco city council are ridiculous, as usual.

The idea would be to set precedent... I would love to see PR, FL or Houston take these monsters to court... but they're a bit busy trying to rebuild. And Houston would rather drown than hurt the oil industry...

 

[RobertF]

How is holding people accountable 'fruity' or 'nutty'?

Its difficult for me to understand how a city that continues to use oil and gas after determining it is bad can sue someone for producing it. I have no problem with carbon tax or renewable energy incentives.

 

[kort677]

I agree with the comment asking how the city can sue a producer of a product that they use but I vehemently disagree with any sort of carbon based taxes which are really just a new method of allowing the government to get their hands into your pockets.

 

[nwdiver]

Its difficult for me to understand how a city that continues to use oil and gas after determining it is bad can sue someone for producing it. I have no problem with carbon tax or renewable energy incentives.

So people addicted to cigarettes should not have been able to sue tobacco companies?

I agree with the comment asking how the city can sue a producer of a product that they use but I vehemently disagree with any sort of carbon based taxes which are really just a new method of allowing the government to get their hands into your pockets.

What's your solution? How do you propose we internalize the external cost of our addiction? Or should flood, fire, drought and hurricane victims continue to subsidize it....

 

[Stirfelt]

nwdiver - Your position is unsustainable. It's a waste of time for me to read anything more you have to write.

(No need to respond ... I will not see it)

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver - Your position is unsustainable. It's a waste of time for me to read anything more you have to write.

(No need to respond ... I will not see it)

So discouraging unsustainable behavior is unsustainable? That sucks... 'cause we are a long way from where we need to be...

 

[FlatSix911]

nwdiver - time to give it a rest. Your Eco-warrior outfit is made possible by petroleum

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver - time to give it a rest. Your Eco-warrior outfit is made possible by petroleum

.... what's wrong with that? I love using petroleum in materials. That's one of the reasons I think it's beyond insane to be burning so much of it. It's far too valuable to be used as a fuel.

 

[kort677]

.... what's wrong with that? I love using petroleum in materials. That's one of the reasons I think it's beyond insane to be burning so much of it. It's far too valuable to be used as a fuel.

and highlights your complete lack of understanding of petroleum!
the level of your cluelessness is astounding yet you continue to expound nonsense built on a base of ignorance.