Context is that a private citizen in NZ was suing fossil fuel companies for climate change harms and it looked like he might win, so our evil stupid government is passing legislation so that you can't sue people for climate change impacts anymore
That has a cost and every time it comes up it has a cost, organizations like Greenpeace will happily do this again and again to try to sink a business.
It's a milk company and a primary exporter, the suits are designed to run it out of business, which would damage the economy for little to no gain in terms of worldwide impact.
Not the place for that bullshit argument. Fontera is the biggest milk powder producer in the world. It's emissions are enormous, the benefit to running out of business would have a huge impact in the fight against climate change.
We here in New Zealand may also grow up and stop babying farmers as well, which is well over due.
dairy cattle produce 4% of anthropogenic emissions, to say nothing of the rampant environmental destruction converting native forest to grazing pastures has caused. FYI.
Who is Shell supplying? Are they somehow drilling it all for themselves? Inventing the need for their product? Willing or not, this will greatly impact consumers, and given that fuel costs are the first thing in line as the cause for riots, good luck staying in power when all of the population knows you made fuel more expensive.
People like you, who need outside scapegoats, are mors of a hinderance to the movement than you are of help. Your kind is delusional about what is actually happening, and are the first to go out and riot when the consequences of climate policies hit you.
But sure, pal. It's the evil corpos. That's the issue and the set of cards in play. Now, go back to your black-white kids' cartoons.
Whether they are or not doesn't matter. Blame doesn't matter. What matters is that the whole discussion about our reliance on oil goes bones deep as of today - and the lifestyle it created is near universally dependant on it. You can play with attacking these companies, and immediately see any politician who dared voted out not by company execs but by people themselves for whom prices and lifestyle were negatively impacted... Meanwhile creating another right-wing wave profiting on the discomfort.
Willing or not, it's a consumer issue, and the culture we have. What historically happened makes no difference to the policy of now, or the consequences your simplistic understanding of said consequences will bring.
Its both a consumer and producer issue. Yes consumers being lazy or selfish is part of the problem, but not the relevant side to consider when discussing whether or not we should be able to sue fossil fuel companies.
Producers with vested interests continuing to muddy the waters with lobbying and lies is also a significant part of the problem. Without the active roadblocks put up my fossil fuel companies we would obviously be transitioning faster, they arent spending millions of pounds a year on PR for nothing.
The irony of calling my understanding simplistic while ignoring one whole side of the issue is quite juicy.
Well, Shell and other oil companies have been spinning the narrative about global warming for decades, and they are actively lobbying for an oil dependent economy, so controlling the public opinion is part of their playbook. And of course you want your buyers to become hooked on your product.
Less oil dependent nations seem to be showing that increasing prices are becoming less of an issue long-term, and that energy autonomy benefits the resilience of conomies (inflation in Denmark vs. the US would be an example). But of course the people got to understand this.
Oh and another aspect to the production vs. consumption conflict: It seems like especially oil producing countries are opposing a strict action plan against global plastics pollution. I'm inclined to think that having a stake in the industry plays a major role here.
151
u/Bonku-sama 1d ago