ExxonMobil Wants You to Take Responsibility for Climate Change, Study Says | Hacker News Reader

ExxonMobil Wants You to Take Responsibility for Climate Change, Study Says

time.com

44 pointsaracena14 comments

After fucking lying through their teeth about them knowing about global warming? Fuck them.

Just like CocaCola CEO saying that people can just recycle their bottles and offloading the cost of glass bottles or their reuse onto the people and the one planet we have.

Fuck these oligarchs

I have to say, I agree with Exxon here. After all, who is truly responsible for excess pollution in the following scenario? John Doe choosing to drive a 9 mile-per-gallon Hummer, or Exxon for pulling 9 gallons of petroleum out of a rock?

I'm gonna have to say it was a group effort.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, but only one of them has an advertising budget.

Exxon only advertises their lubricants. Oil is a commodity. Do you know who drilled the oil you fill your automobile with at Sheetz?

Ah, Exxon wasn’t involved in this scandal but you’re ignoring large systemic pushes by oil and car companies (in this case GM and Standard Oil) to increase people’s need for oil. [1]

It’s nice to have us all bickering about which cars we own when most of us shouldn’t need a car at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

The fact that cars gives freedom and mobility for a low price is not some conspiracy. Sure - some companies benefitted greatly from the car, but i say it's not a cause/effect relationship.

It's like blaming tobacco companies for the human brain's natural addictive nature to nicotine. They are not to blame - they are merely supplying a product that other humans demand (despite it being patently bad for them).

Before Exxon was to blame, and now Exxon is telling me it's my fault. Why would I accept that?

Because they could be correct? Why should you reject it out of hand?

What do I get out of accepting the blame? This isn't a personal relationship.

>What do I get out of accepting the blame?

Less costly energy bills?

People shouldn't need an oil company to remind them that what used to be a dwindling resource and now a more threatening "climate risk" could best be addressed either way by extreme conservation, and substitution using less damaging alternatives whenever possible.

Thanks for clarifying. It does make more sense now. They are bribing us with lower costs in order to escape accountability. I can see why they would want to do that.

Did John Doe get the cities to pull up all their streetcar rails and make life without cars much more inconvenient, or was that public policy project undertaken and pushed forward by the large oil interests?

Of course, what better way to thwart public opinion towards collective efforts than to place the individual in a spotlight?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com