Hacker News Reader

Comment by d4mi3n | Hacker News Reader

I think the argument here is that they shouldn’t deceive the public about the realities of their operations in order to raise or sustain their profits.

If the service is essential, the consumers of said goods can make their own decisions about how essential they are without all the smoke and mirrors.

View on HN

"An inconvenient truth" and Greta Thunberg hardly had any effect in changing policy.

So don't tell me the lies of the oil companies had any effect on policy. Congress saw the conflict of interest, but didn't want to do anything that raise gas prices.

I don’t disagree with you, but I also don’t believe allowing or continuing to normalize deception of the general public is an acceptable status quo.

Congress and the public may decide what level of non-renewable energy sources is acceptable to them. But they should not need to do so while being burdened by deliberate campaigns to misinform them or muddy the waters.

you can’t definitively prove or disprove that. What you can prove is that oil companies actively deceived consumers about negative externalities associated with their product.

That's a brilliant excuse: Lie about the effects of emissions, lobby (and pay) Congress to not do anything about it (or change incentives to maybe use less gas rather than more) and then, when you are getting sued, just argue that the lying didn't affect policy, so it was perfectly fine.

Have you considered the possibility that Gore and Thunberg have had little success in changing policy because of things like the lies of oil companies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com