Hacker News Reader

Comment by whydoyoucare | Hacker News Reader

Let us assume Exxon Mobil suddenly aligns with the ideals of the anti-climate-change-brigade (like the state), and pulls the plug on all Oil and Fossil fuel business. All other companies follow suit. What plans does the state have to provide altnerate sources of energy? Zilch! (Remember in this scenario, Norway will collapse economically, from what I recall).

No only is the lawsuit frivolous, it also indicates short-sightedness on the part of the State, not to metion, a huge waste of taxpayer money. I also believe this to be a case of "virtue signaling" and selective outrage than any meaningful change.

Climate change to me is not black-and-white, there are infinite shades of gray. I think firstly the word "crisis" should be disassociated from "climate change".

(I also know my response will be downvoted and I will be told so, which is another case of virtue signaling. As I stated earlier, I don't write for the HN brownie points).

View on HN

In your completely absurd strawman scenario, you’re right.

In real life, it would take (is taking) decades to switch over. Your comment is totally moot.

Here's an alternate perspective:

Let's say Exxon did suppress information about climate change and their role in it. Thus, compared to a world of perfect transparency and information, Exxon was able to earn more profit, because the market lacked the information to price their products correctly and transition away from fossil fuels decades ago.

Had Massachusetts access to Exxon's suppressed information decades ago, taxes could have been enacted on their products and the money used to transition to different power sources.

In this case, maybe it's correct for the state to sue, to claw back some of the money they would've had to make the transition by now.

Also, if Norway has based their entire economy on fossil fuels then that's their own kind of short-sightedness, because even in a non-climate-change world most experts agree the fossil fuels will run out eventually.

Let us assume that a situation that will never happen will happen. Suddenly, everything is bad! Therefore you are all filthy virtue signallers.

> (I also know my response will be downvoted and I will be told so, which is another case of virtue signaling. As I stated earlier, I don't write for the HN brownie points).

You've just labeled all future downvotes you recieve on this post as virtue signalling, which assumes that people have no other reasonable basis for downvoting your post. Try to have an open mind instead of assuming one unified motive exists for everybody who disagrees with you.

Edit: Also, how are anonymous downvotes virtue signalling? Do you think downvoters are signalling their virtue to the NSA?

Is anyone saying we need to immediately pull the plug on 100% of oil and fossil fuel use? I haven't seen any serious climate change plans that propose that.

Also, this lawsuit seems to be about deceptive business practices (misleading statements, lies), so I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. It's perfectly possible to run a business while also being honest about its deleterious effects.

> Is anyone saying we need to immediately pull the plug on 100% of oil and fossil fuel use? I haven't seen any serious climate change plans that propose that.

No, but they are saying that with respect to energy over ten years, and they are quite serious:

"The Green New Deal starts with a WWII-type mobilization to address the grave threat posed by climate change, transitioning our country to 100% clean energy by 2030" -- gp.org/green_new_deal

It's irrelevant whether or not alternatives exist, the accusation is that Exxon lied about its knowledge and actions to its own investors and consumers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com