9 ms·
Legally? Almost certainly no one. Ethically? The corporate executives who deliberately covered up evidence of global warming, starting back in the 70s.[1] 1. h
by GolfPopper 17d ago
Legally? Almost certainly no one. Ethically? The corporate executives who deliberately covered up evidence of global warming, starting back in the 70s.[1]
1. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
- strictnein 17d agoAnd since we've all known about this for 30+ years, is it still their fault, or is it ours?
- inigyou 17d agoWhat should I have done about it for the past 30 years?
- bethekidyouwant 17d agoLive a life of voluntary poverty?
- inigyou 17d agoAnd if I had done that, how would the climate be today?
- Symbiote 17d agoVoted for the environmental candidate every time.
- inigyou 17d agoAlready did, we still ended up here, clearly that solution didn't work
- strictnein 17d agoNothing. My point was simply that blaming people who did something 40-50 years ago is pretty silly.
- femto 17d agoIt's "their" fault, at least according to Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest, who is one of "them". His view is that if a specific group, of about 1000 powerful people, chose to address climate change, it would be fixed. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/inside-andrew-twiggy-forrest-s-urgent-global-climate-campaign-20231026-p5efbc.html https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/inside-and...
- lotsofpulp 17d agoThat’s laughable. The number 1 cause of climate change is spread out living. The 0.1+ acre lot with a detached single family home that results in enormous distances required for all the mass to travel. There is no way people would have or will accept living in Honk Kong style dense living to save the future planet. Hell, they don’t even accept driving smaller vehicles much less changing their whole lifestyle.
- barbazoo 17d agoIncluding executives that still refuse to price in the environmental externalities of their business practices.
- samus 17d agoWhy would they do that? That would make their shareholders angry and give their competitors an edge. (No /s)
- failbuffer 17d agoAnd don't forget the politicians and media personalities who knowingly or negligently denied that there was even a problem.
- inigyou 17d agoThey're winning. They have billions of dollars and very cushy lives.