SF and Oakland Vs. Big Oil

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

SF and Oakland Vs. Big Oil

Postby zetreque on March 21st, 2018, 11:05 pm 

https://www.wired.com/story/courtroom-climate-science/
“From Chevron’s perspective, there’s no debate about climate science,” Boutrous said. “Chevron accepts what this scientific body—scientists and others—what the IPCC has reached consensus on.”

The follow-up questions, though, will be the tricky part. Because what was at stake in that courtroom was not whether the effects of climate change—sea level rise, ocean acidification, weather extremes, wildfires, disease outbreaks—are people’s fault. It was whether a lawsuit could show that specific effects (floods) are specific people’s fault. Specifically, the people at Chevron.

...and BP and ExxonMobil, because San Francisco and Oakland are suing those companies for money to build seawalls and other protective infrastructure.

If that seems a little bit like the “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” of petrochemical capitalism, well, Judge Alsup did start the morning by saying today was a day for science, not politics.

Outside the usual procedural kabuki of the courtroom, the truth is no one really knew what to expect from this court-ordered “tutorial.” For a culture based in large measure on precedent, putting counsel and experts in a room to hash out climate change for a trial—putting everyone on the record, in federal court, on what is and is not true about climate science—was literally unprecedented.

Now things might get even more real. If a court attaches culpability for sea level rise in California to petrochemical companies, that might establish causation for a planet’s worth of damage, any disaster someone can plausibly connect to climate change. That’s wildfires, drought, more intense hurricanes. Attribute it to climate, and it could attribute all the way to fossil fuel companies’ bank accounts.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: SF and Oakland Vs. Big Oil

Postby Braininvat on March 22nd, 2018, 9:48 am 

You, me, and almost everyone we know buys refined petroleum from these companies. And we not only demand their product, but we fully expect other companies to ship their products to us by means of petro-fueled transport. And we expect modern agriculture to feed us, a system that depends on petroleum to plant, fertilize, harvest, and process and ship. They should sue themselves, and us, as well. Or they do something constructive like push for Green policies and supporting alternative energy markets and infrastructure.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: SF and Oakland Vs. Big Oil

Postby zetreque on March 22nd, 2018, 1:54 pm 

I agree that it is ridiculous but I disagree with you about me personally demanding these products or other companies to use these products.
If oil stopped tomorrow I would be fine with that. Sure it would throw the country into chaos but so be it. We are supposedly smart and will figure out a better way. I demand cleaner energy technologies and not to be lied to or manipulated.
Believe it or not, I do always buy products now that try to minimize their use of petrol and if I had to do with not having a product delivered to me until a better way was found I would be perfectly find with that. The only thing I am a consumer of is food and I get a lot of it locally. I don't even buy clothes for years. Bring on the candle light and home knit sweaters.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)



Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests