Climate Reparations

Great Debates
1

So at this point it is well-known that major contributors to climate change, most notably Exxon, knew about climate change back in the 1970s, and were aware of the consequences. Instead of moving away from oil and gas, they doubled down, spending massive amounts of money on disinformation campaigns akin to those of tobacco companies a decade earlier. The Scientific American has the information here.

To what degree can or should Exxon (and the Koch brothers, and similar institutions which knew that they were exacerbating the climate crisis but decided to lie about it instead) be held responsible for their role in the climate crisis?

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot really speak to the “can” element of this, but in terms of “should”… Nathan J. Robinson has written about this at length in Current Affairs:

Let’s be clear about what that means: On the most basic libertarian theory of property rights, companies whose activities cause harm should legally owe compensation for that harm. Currently, there is a lot of discussion about whether the government should adopt “carbon taxes” that aim to ensure that carbon emissions are priced correctly. Up until now, carbon emissions have been a giant “externality”—a cost imposed that isn’t accounted for in market prices. (As my colleague Rob Larson has written, this market failure is a significant indictment of capitalism’s ability to find prices that accurately reflect value.) But if those who claim to respect property rights actually took property rights seriously, carbon taxes shouldn’t even be a policy “choice.” Charging companies that emit climate-destroying gases for that destruction is not optional. Not to do it would be to admit that we do not actually care about property rights, we just care about protecting the property of particular favored parties. (Namely corporations.) You shouldn’t even need to pass a tax, because greenhouse gas emitters should be sued out of existence.

So far, United States courts have not been particularly sympathetic to the case that carbon polluters owe damages for their damage. The Supreme Court has rejected attempts to sue the operators of fossil-fuel-fired power plants on the grounds that greenhouse gas emission is to be regulated by the EPA. Last year, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a fascinating opinion dismissing a claim against major fossil fuel companies like Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. The judge said that while “all parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise… the issue is a legal one—whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level.” (Given, of course, that these producers knew full well that these harms would result and launched massive decades-long campaigns to obscure the truth.) Because of my sincere commitment to basic property rights, I find it peculiar that this should even be a question: Given that we know Action X causes Property Damage Y, should those who knowingly take Action X have to pay for Property Damage Y? Of course they should. How could the issue possibly be resolved differently? If all parties agree that the harm is being caused by the companies, then the companies need to pay for the harm, period.

Personally, I think that this is a slam-dunk case for companies like Exxon and Koch Industries to be held responsible for the damage they knew their products would cause to the environment. Furthermore, given the sheer breadth of the harm in this case, I think that it is entirely reasonable to hold individuals and/or broad swathes of the leadership at such companies personally criminally responsible for their actions, perhaps under a “crimes against humanity” suit.

I’m sure there’s also an interesting debate to be had over whether such the countries that host such companies (predominately rich, western companies) owe reparations for the harm caused to the countries most negatively effected by climate change (predominately poor, equatorial countries).

2

It seems sensible to me for polluters to pay for the damage, but this is where the climate change deniers get fuel for their claims that climate change action is all about wealth redistribution. Charging them with crimes against humanity seems like a step too far. I don’t need to see oil tycoons hang, I just want the planet to not warm up too much. I think it is fair for the polluters to pay the predominate costs to ensure this doesn’t happen. And that includes me*. I’m a citizen of Canada. Canada, like most of the West, has greatly benefited from cheap energy to grow. I am personally in some way responsible for the damage done to the planet. So yes, I have to pay.

3

Honestly?

I do. I want to see them hang. I want to see Charles Koch, Lawrence G. Rawl, and all of their ilk suffer and die for what they’ve done. I think that the degree of injustice perpetrated upon all of us by rich men who sold our future down the river in order to maintain and grow their already-obscene opulence (make no mistake, the responsible parties here are all rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice) is both extreme and unforgivable. We’re looking at something like hundreds of thousands of deaths per year directly attributable to climate change. It’s slow-moving mass murder. The fact that these men will likely die of old age, surrounded by their ill-gotten gains in a level of comfort the rest of us can only dream of makes my brain go to some very dark places. But beyond my own personal psyche (no points for guessing my brain is all kinds of fucked up), it also sets a precedent - if you commit ecocide for profit, you don’t get to live off your spoils, you get convicted, imprisoned, and probably killed by those you hurt.

4

Maybe if you hadn’t gladly gobbled up their products over the years the position might be more convincing. If we stopped all O&G operations today the result would be immediate death and destruction.
We could go after their owners, you know, the retirees and pension funds and other institutional investors who own ExxonMobil. Or we could recognize and tax the externalities, as ExxonMobil supports.

5

The scientific community knew about global warming before any company did. Since the scientific community is mostly funded by the government, it’s clear the government also knew about global warming back then–but the government did nothing about it.

As to the oil companies doing harm note that the vast overwhelming majority of the harm is done by the consumers of this oil companies–in other words virtually all businesses and individuals when they burned the fuel.

6

This is disturbing.

7

China is responsible for emitting almost as much CO2 as North America and Europe combined. The Chinese government has chosen to build an enormous number of new coal power plants over the past two decades and intends to continue doing so. So if you’re upset about climate change, blame a communist. (If the “Extinction Rebellion” crowd and Greta Thunberg actually cared about climate change, they would be protesting in Beijing, or at least in front of Chinese embassies.)

Beyond that, there’s another fundamental flaw in the argument. Exxon and other companies don’t produce oil because they’re run by James Bond villain types who sit around stroking white cats, feeding underlings to piranhas, and plotting how to make the world worse. Instead, they produce oil because oil makes the world better, and thus billions of people all over the world want to purchase oil, and thus it is profitable to produce oil.

Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that on some day in, say, 1995, the CEO Exxon had decided that the company would stop drilling for oil, pumping oil, refining oil, and selling oil. What would have happened?

Well, first and most self-evidently, the board of directors would have ousted the CEO and replaced him with someone who would go back to drilling, pumping, refining, and selling oil. So the decision would have been pointless.

But beyond that, even if the Exxon corporation had actually stopped producing oil in 1995, then other oil corporations would have increased their production to meet demand. Because people all over the world would have still been demanding oil. So still, the amount of oil produced would have been roughly the same.

8

The “China is responsible…” thing? It is like saying “Why should I put out my own house fire when my neighbor’s house fire is so much worse?”

9

I’m not sure that I’d enjoy watching them hang as much if I’m in the process of trying to keep my head above water from a flood. Or running from a fire.

10

I disagree and a few others have posted reasons why I would disagree so I won’t repeat them.

But let’s say I did agree. Even under that circumstance, I would still think this is a bad idea. You have to pick your battles, and have a priority. Hanging a few oil tycoons isn’t going to change people’s behavior. It probably wouldn’t even change oil tycoons behavior. The goal for climate change action needs to be focused on keeping warming to a minimum, and to do that we need people’s behavior to change.

I cannot to the level of trying to go after the companies criminally. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Hit them in the pocketbook, to most of them their bank accounts are their scorecards anyway.

11

Maybe we should just hang anyone that’s ever bought a fuel or plastic made from petroleum in the past 50 years. After all the “oil tycoons” wouldn’t pump it if people weren’t buying, and if you look at narcotics or prostitution it’s just as illegal to buy as to sell.

Realistically if we hanged the oil tycoons, the world would keep buying petroleum products just as fast as the replacement tycoons can pump it out of the ground. And will continue to do so until we have viable replacements for it. So maybe investing in Tesla is better than hanging the oil tycoons.

12

I would need to see a citation to support this claim.
“Scientists”, whoever they may be, have been studying climate change for many decades. However, reports from scientists within Exxon, Mobile, Shell, and other companies have been reported going back to the 1960s. I am not aware of any reports from schools or government agencies that actually precede those from the petroleum companies.

Before we start hanging people, I think we should discover who knew what when and how much energy they invested in suppressing the information.

13

Budget Player Cadet, wishing harm or death on people is not a good thing and serves no purpose in a discussion forum except to demonstrate personal feelings.
Please ratchet down the rhetoric.

[ /Moderating ]

14

I don’t know man it’s really just more fun to kill hippies and free spirits than oil magnates. It’s like eating veal.

15

No it’s not.

16

And with this, there no longer a debate, just a rant. :frowning:

17

China has not only vastly surpassed other countries in CO2 emissions, they continue to increase them while others decrease them (and so does India for that matter), so right now focus on reducing CO2 emissions should be on those that are not reducing them but doing the opposite.

The OPs plan, besides being bad in many other ways would punish countries who are doing the right thing and in effect benefit (by increasing their competitiveness) those doing the most damage now.

That is to say, your analogy is flawed, the situation now is that there’s a fire under control (Western industrial nations) and there’s one out of control and spreading (China and other developing countries), so of course more effort is needed in the one that represents a bigger present and future threat.

18

The thing is though, how can we (i.e. the ‘western’ world) insist China, India et al cut their carbon emissions without appearing massively hypocritical? I mean, our societies have benefited enormously from cheap energy over the last 150 years or so - who are we to deny them the same opportunity? I’m not denying it’s a problem, I just don’t see we have any moral high ground here.

19

For the vast majority of the that time the societies involved were not aware of the impact of their actions in regards to AGW, places like China more than doubled IIRC their carbon emissions during the last 20 or so years, if it’s about morality then where is the morality on doing something known to be harmful in full knowledge of the consequences?, because if the idea is to punish those doing such a things doing it retroactively, and selectively ignoring the current worst offenders then it evidently the point of the exercise has less to do with environmental considerations and more with some other agendas.

This is similar to Greta Thunberg’s lawsuit, where she scolds and seeks to punish the countries that are currently flat lining or reducing their CO2 emissions while ignoring the ones who are increasing them now and in the foreseeable future.

You should take a look at the graph in the link I posted before and you will plainly see where the problems lie today in regards to CO2 emissions.

In any case that line of argumentation can just as well be used to justify other things, “well you prospered in the past with the use of slaves/without labour laws/exploiting colonies, etc, etc. So why can’t we make use of slavery, abuse workers and colonize and plunder foreign lands now?”

20

Fair points, thank you. I am not seeking to deny there is a problem or where it largely lies. But, I can see why the Chinese and Indian governments might choose to ignore western pressure to make changes. Not that that makes it right, of course.

Where we can go wrong is by saying “fuck it, they’re much worse than us so we’re not going to take any steps to sort our own nations out”, i.e. like Czarcasm’s analogy, flawed as it may be. I wouldn’t go so far as to support the OP of this thread, but let’s do what we can and pressure others to do the same.