SF sues oil companies because of climate change

[AMPd]

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? What happened to tobacco? Anything that still requires diesel would get more expensive which will accelerate alternatives.

Calm down, now let's try again.
What do you think will happen if oil companies get hit with huge fines?

 

[nwdiver]

Calm down, now let's try again.
What do you think will happen if oil companies get hit with huge fines?

Like I said....

Anything that still requires diesel would get more expensive which will accelerate alternatives.

The $200B award to plaintiffs suing tobacco companies didn't really come out of their end... the price of cigarettes went up. Sue the oil majors and the cost of gasoline and diesel will go up....

What about this confuses you?

 

[AMPd]

You keep mentioning the tobacco industry, why? It's not at all relevant to this topic

The petroleum industry literally sustains your current lifestyle.
If you think quiting smoking is equal to quiting the use of petroleum then you're just lying to yourself.

If you think people will just up and switch to electric cars because the fuel doubles in price then once again you're lying to yourself. Significant increase in gasoline or diesel prices will significantly raise the cost of living for the lower income families that are already struggling. And guess what? Those families don't have 30k to spend on an ev

Oh but they'll be fine because we're going to institute a carbon tax that'll go to those families... for how long? And what guarantees are there that those families will purchase an ev? They won't, all that money will do is circle back to pay for the gasoline and the higher cost of goods, so they're back where they started


If you think switching transportation fuel to electric drive is as easy as just raising prices on fuel, then you're just being naive.

 

[Darmie]

This is simple. they are without merit. where is the city forced to consume a product that they are against? If there is consumption of petroleum in the city's that are suing, then they are at the highest fault on their lawsuit.

 

[Vitold]

You keep mentioning the tobacco industry, why? It's not at all relevant to this topic

The petroleum industry literally sustains your current lifestyle.
If you think quiting smoking is equal to quiting the use of petroleum then you're just lying to yourself.

If you think people will just up and switch to electric cars because the fuel doubles in price then once again you're lying to yourself. Significant increase in gasoline or diesel prices will significantly raise the cost of living for the lower income families that are already struggling. And guess what? Those families don't have 30k to spend on an ev

Oh but they'll be fine because we're going to institute a carbon tax that'll go to those families... for how long? And what guarantees are there that those families will purchase an ev? They won't, all that money will do is circle back to pay for the gasoline and the higher cost of goods, so they're back where they started


If you think switching transportation fuel to electric drive is as easy as just raising prices on fuel, then you're just being naive.

That was exactly the kind of thinking that got us (the world) in to this mess. We have burned enough of oil that we finally can feel results of our actions - no scientists required.

 

[nwdiver]

You keep mentioning the tobacco industry, why? It's not at all relevant to this topic

The tobacco lawsuits are absolutely relevant. They're companies that perpetuated public harm thru fraud. The oil majors even used the same lobbying companies that created confusion around the link between smoking and cancer to create confusion around the link between AGW and fossil fuels.

If you think people will just up and switch to electric cars because the fuel doubles in price then once again you're lying to yourself. Significant increase in gasoline or diesel prices will significantly raise the cost of living for the lower income families that are already struggling. And guess what? Those families don't have 30k to spend on an ev

Like I said... Gasoline and Diesel getting more expensive will accelerate the transition. Do you really think our transition to EVs would be nearly as anemic if petrol was $5/gal? Really? I don't like the idea that low income families would be harmed which is why I prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax... but I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Oh but they'll be fine because we're going to institute a carbon tax that'll go to those families... for how long? And what guarantees are there that those families will purchase an ev? They won't, all that money will do is circle back to pay for the gasoline and the higher cost of goods, so they're back where they started

If you think switching transportation fuel to electric drive is as easy as just raising prices on fuel, then you're just being naive.

The carbon tax would be in place for as long as we're using fossil fuels. You can't fix all irrational behavior. It's not like the oil is gonna last forever... what would people that foolish do when it's gone?

Ok.... so what do you propose? How do we accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels?

 

[nwdiver]

This is simple. they are without merit. where is the city forced to consume a product that they are against? If there is consumption of petroleum in the city's that are suing, then they are at the highest fault on their lawsuit.

SF stopping the use of petroleum isn't gonna magically stop the level of the Bay from rising...

 

[FlatSix911]

Los Altos, CA is number 7 on the list with over 111lbs of CO2 saved per person.
Not bad for a small town... along with 7 other California cities on the top 10 list

 

[rays427]

Hurricanes in general are relatively rare events... let's make the assumption that there are fewer strong storms. There aren't; but lets assume that the dice fell in a way that there are. Let's assume we've been lucky....

Does CO2 warm the oceans? Absolutely.

Do Warm oceans fuel Hurricanes? Yes.

........ shouldn't we stop loading the dice?

It's interesting that until the 2 major hurricanes that hit the US this year we had the longest period of no major hurricanes hitting the US since records started in 1850. Just because the water is warmer doesn't mean there will be more or stronger hurricanes. It's the difference between the water temperature and air temperature and many models predict the air temperature will go up more so it could me fewer overall hurricanes. Here is what IPCC says in one of there studies.

"On hurricanes, climate models predict it is more likely than not – meaning that there is over a 50 per cent chance – that the number of the most intense storms will increase in certain parts of the world. Globally, however, the IPCC says it’s likely the number of tropical cyclones will “either decrease or remain essentially unchanged”. It’s hard to make predictions about these types of storms as the processes involved occur on much smaller scales than climate models can currently replicate."

So just because there are higher ocean temperatures doesn't necessarily mean more hurricanes hitting the US.

 

[nwdiver]

So just because there are higher ocean temperatures doesn't necessarily mean more hurricanes hitting the US.

That's very true... also misses the point... but I have a feeling you know that.

The point is that the hurricanes that DO form WILL get stronger faster. The Hurricanes that DO hit the US will be more severe... but you already knew that too didn't you.....

 

[rays427]

That's very true... also misses the point... but I have a feeling you know that.

The point is that the hurricanes that DO form WILL get stronger faster. The Hurricanes that DO hit the US will be more severe... but you already knew that too didn't you.....

Actually many/most models show air temperature warming faster than sea temperatures. Since hurricanes are formed and fed by rising moist air, warmer air temperatures should slow the process.

 

[James Anders]

Regardless of the merits of the case there's no possible way that this will be proven in a court of law.

 

[skitown]

Simply proving a cover up in a court of law would be a huge loss for big oil. Effectively that these companies did their own research on the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change, buried it and funded a misinformation campaign. Seems like this is the legal angle. It’s quite analogous to what happened to big tobacco, who did their own research on the link between their products and cancer, buried it and lied about it. Similar cover up strategy. Similar legal playbook.

 

[nwdiver]

Actually many/most models show air temperature warming faster than sea temperatures. Since hurricanes are formed and fed by rising moist air, warmer air temperatures should slow the process.

Odd how the deniers hardly ever cite their 'facts'....

There is ZERO research to indicating that global warming is going to result in tamer hurricanes...

Several that show otherwise...

Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

But... I'm tired of debating with zealots that refuse to accept reality... time to use the ignore button again...

 

[rays427]

nwdiver,

There are models that state higher air temperature could moderate hurricanes. In addition even the IPCC says there is likely less to make landfall. So even if they are more intense it still is possible there will be damage. Please note that the last several years the number of storms hitting the US has fallen. Not wanting to hear the other side on issues is not the answer. I'm certainly willing to hear your side of the issues even though I don't agree with many of them.

 

[David_Cary]

Hey I have a beach house in NC and I don't really want to bet that the sea won't rise and that hurricanes will become less of an issue. How did this thread get full of AGW deniers or head in the sand types.
Lawsuit and settlement would cause an increase in the price of gas and diesel. Makes sense. Sounds good to me.
The courts are going to have to work on what the government won't do. I hate that idea but I hate the current government more.
CA state could of course pass an incrementally increasing gas tax and try to form a bloc of states to do the same.

The poor can't buy EVs. Well they could buy corolla's, take public transportation, find work closer to home, buy a used EV etc etc. At $2 a gallon gas, they buy old Chevy Tahoes.

Any reasonable person who studies the environment and economics knows the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to raise the price of gasoline and diesel (etc, etc). It is called internalizing the externalities and is a well established economic remedy. The legislative and executive branches can't do it because they are focused on short term gains as is capitalism. The judicial branch is not focused the same way and can look at the bigger picture.

 

[kort677]

Hey I have a beach house in NC and I don't really want to bet that the sea won't rise and that hurricanes will become less of an issue. How did this thread get full of AGW deniers or head in the sand types.
Lawsuit and settlement would cause an increase in the price of gas and diesel. Makes sense. Sounds good to me.
The courts are going to have to work on what the government won't do. I hate that idea but I hate the current government more.
CA state could of course pass an incrementally increasing gas tax and try to form a bloc of states to do the same.

The poor can't buy EVs. Well they could buy corolla's, take public transportation, find work closer to home, buy a used EV etc etc. At $2 a gallon gas, they buy old Chevy Tahoes.

Any reasonable person who studies the environment and economics knows the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to raise the price of gasoline and diesel (etc, etc). It is called internalizing the externalities and is a well established economic remedy. The legislative and executive branches can't do it because they are focused on short term gains as is capitalism. The judicial branch is not focused the same way and can look at the bigger picture.

unbelievable, do you realize the burdens that you would be heaping onto to people? especially the poorer ones who you think should be on public transport or in tiny cars. imposing taxes to influence societal norms in this manner will raise the cost of EVERYTHING, not just confined to fuel.
you have voiced the typical elitist point of view, raise the costs of everything, "I don't care, the poor can do without"

 

[skitown]

unbelievable, do you realize the burdens that you would be heaping onto to people? especially the poorer ones who you think should be on public transport or in tiny cars. imposing taxes to influence societal norms in this manner will raise the cost of EVERYTHING, not just confined to fuel.
you have voiced the typical elitist point of view, raise the costs of everything, "I don't care, the poor can do without"

Existing taxes incentivize different behavior. If we're going to continue taxing things, we may as well tax things we'd like to incentivize one way or the other. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would do this by design. As a person who's concerned about AGW, I'm most concerned for the poor, as they will be hurt the worst.

But this thread is so laughable. You seem a rational and smart person. If I thought AGW was BS, I too would be rallying against doing anything like taxing carbon, spending money or any effort attempting to prevent it. There'd be nothing to prevent! It's a complete sham and a waste of money.

But I'm not in that camp. I think humanity is going to end spending a lot more money in the long run by doing nothing. In fact, I think money will be the least of our problems - as at some point out in the future, if you are concerned about AGW, you realize that all the money in the world won't be able to "fix" it.

 

[nwdiver]

Hey I have a beach house in NC and I don't really want to bet that the sea won't rise and that hurricanes will become less of an issue. How did this thread get full of AGW deniers or head in the sand types.
Lawsuit and settlement would cause an increase in the price of gas and diesel. Makes sense. Sounds good to me.
The courts are going to have to work on what the government won't do. I hate that idea but I hate the current government more.
CA state could of course pass an incrementally increasing gas tax and try to form a bloc of states to do the same.

The poor can't buy EVs. Well they could buy corolla's, take public transportation, find work closer to home, buy a used EV etc etc. At $2 a gallon gas, they buy old Chevy Tahoes.

Any reasonable person who studies the environment and economics knows the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to raise the price of gasoline and diesel (etc, etc). It is called internalizing the externalities and is a well established economic remedy. The legislative and executive branches can't do it because they are focused on short term gains as is capitalism. The judicial branch is not focused the same way and can look at the bigger picture.

Save your facts and reason..... that's a foreign language to the ideologues and zealots. The sad reality is that some people have built a religion around the idea that nothing good can come from anything not driven by the profit motive... their minds are closed.

Fortunately there's an 'ignore' button and only ~4 zealots on this thread

 

[kort677]

Save your facts and reason..... that's a foreign language to the ideologues and zealots. T

straight out of the alinsky playbook;
Alinsky’s 12 Rules:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.“ Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.“ It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.“ Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.“ They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.

8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.“ Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.“ Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.“ Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.“ Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.