Skip to content

Well, no, they haven’t

The lawsuit she filed in November goes after a who’s who of the fossil fuel industry — Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and others. Ms. Sims argues that since 1965, those companies have produced 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time colluding to deceive the public about the disastrous consequences of their actions.

We the people have been making the emissions by using the oil sold to us – which we willingly bought.

But, you know, logic and the law never the twain shall meet etc.

22 thoughts on “Well, no, they haven’t”

  1. Putting the people on whose products you depend on in order to not die out of business is a very cunning plan, isn’t it?

    I used to wonder about junkies and why they’d piss in the lifts they need to use every day.

    I don’t wonder anymore.

  2. The world population in 1965 was 3.3 billion. It is now 8 billion, but absolute poverty has fallen. Do we also credit Big Oil for the good stuff?

  3. Surely this also means we can sue her for depriving us of the energy and its products that are necessary to keep us alive.

    Perhaps we should call our case, The Conspiracy to Murder US All?

  4. How much coal does Exxon etc produce?
    Coal, being cheaper and less efficient, generates as much CO2 worlwide as oil and gas combined. Russia and Saudi Arabia (ignoring other state-owned production) each produce 12% of the world’s oil, Russia alone produces 17% of the world’s gas. [I could list other state-owned producers of oil and gas that have shrunk to a joint 14% of oil and 14% of gas].
    All private sector oil and gas contributes to less than 31% of CO2 from fossil fuels, which is only part of total CO2 emissions (wood-burning, agriculture, breathing etc).
    She gets a FAIL on her arithmetic as well as her logic.

  5. Idiotic, self righteous and extremely dangerous woman. I’m sure she believes the Holy Spirit is just fine and dandy with all her oil-powered flights from Illinois to Puerto Rico because she’s more important than us.

    The world can get by perfectly well without tobacco but let’s see what happens if fossil fuel usage continues to be curtailed. Underdeveloped countries desperate to claw their way into the 20th let alone the 21st century might not be wholly impressed at the outcome of her litigation.

  6. John @ 10.12, I remember when the Maldives only had one international airport….

    Plus lots of seaplanes that flew to many of the 132 resorts or diesel motor boats (for the poorer visitor or the hotels nearer to Male).

    Curtail their tourist trade for a year and see how fast they ditch any notion of ‘climate crisis’ and memory hole that underwater cabinet meeting.

  7. Her case seems to pivot around a scientific study that claims man made global warming has increased the intensity of hurricanes, specifically the one that hit Puerto Rico in 2017. However, hurricane frequency is way down, so it’s quite possible that Puerto Rico has suffered less hurricane damage overall. I can’t be arsed to check, but the FF company lawyers should.

  8. “The case is part of a new wave of litigation targeting oil, gas and coal companies over climate change, which is driven by the burning of their products.”

    That’ m’lud, is begging the question; assuming what they intend to prove. And they will have to prove it.

    I’m stocking up on popcorn.

  9. @ PJF
    Thanks for that illumination: the warming of the western and central parts of the North Atlantic Ocean has led to a *decrease* in the frequency of hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the USA and in the Carribean. [I did understand the scientific explanation of this twenty years ago but I have forgotten much of it since then.] The increase in insurance costs of the fewer hurricanes is due to increase in the “value” (mostly price rises but also more rich people building better houses and more expensive hotels in tourist spots) of properties destroyed/damaged, not to any increase in hurricane intensity.
    According to Wikipedia Hurricane Maria was the deadliest hurricane to hit Puerto Rico since 1899 – but since Puerto Rico’s population is far higher than it used to be that is a highly misleading categorisation. The 1530s seem to have been worse in terms of storms: the Spanish colonists considered totally abandoning the island but fewer people died because the toal population was less than the number who died in 2017.
    So, she is just a predatory lawyer trying it on to boost her reputation.

  10. The 40% claim is ridiculous – if it was 25% would it affect the legal case. If yes, what is the cut-off of contributions that makes the litigation valid. If no, then that part of the case fails, as any breathing and farting individuals 10^(-9)% contribution is fair game including Ms Sims.

    The argument about collusion to deceive the public about the disastrous consequences of their actions only stands up if they tried to collude but failed because they’re useless. Every government voted for by the public where these companies are based are fully hitched to the doom narrative.

  11. Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, BP … colluding to deceive the public.

    I’ve taken money from three of those four but they’ve not offered me a penny to argue that the global warming hullabaloo is a scam. I think it’s fraud for much the same reason I was paid by the aforesaid ogres: I’m numerate and capable of critical thinking.

  12. @ dearieme
    Anyone concerned about global warming who is suing the oil companies instead of the CCCP is a fraud because China emits more CO2 than is generated by burning the entire production of all the private sector oil & gas companies combined.

  13. And they will have to prove it.

    The usual way these things go is settlement. If it goes to trial there will be discovery, and discovery’s a bitch. So the bean counters will just say it’s cheaper to settle the case without prejudice. See Erin Brockovich.

  14. O/T But couldn’t resist bringing this Torygraph storyline to readers’ attention.

    Army of the future could parachute hospitals to the battlefield
    Members of 16 Air Assault Brigade develop a mobile surgical unit that can provide ‘NHS-standard’ care to troops on the front line

    Aaaah! Oh hang on… Of course! They’re going to be parachuted behind enemy lines. Cunning ruse. Although wouldn’t that be against the Geneva Convention?

  15. bis @ 6.47 “a mobile surgical unit that can provide ‘NHS-standard’ care “.

    Our military is well and truly fucked…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *