๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐น ๐ณ๐๐ฒ๐น ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐.
Aโ๏ธ457-wordโ๏ธ2.5-minuteโ๏ธread
Iโve considered writing this post since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the oil companyโs petition on whether states have the right to sue the fossil fuel industry for damages caused from greenhouse gas emissions.
My issue isnโt whether state of federal law should govern. It also has nothing to do with the fact that climate advocates are going to lose the case.
My issue is with the strategy โ and hypocrisy โ of launching such suits. It is shortsighted and destined for a bad outcome.
Making an enemy out of the fossil fuel industry was suicidal. The industry is too entrenched and too deep-pocketed to wage war against.
Instead of antagonizing the industry, the strategy should have been to seek whatever common ground could be identified and work together with the long-term goal to transition to clean energy.
For example: could a mutual agreement have been reached to eliminate methane leaks from oil and gas production? Could more progress on carbon capture been achieved by cooperating?
Face it: the oil and gas industries want to squeeze whatever profit they can out of the current asset base. However, they also know that at some point they need to transition to new forms of energy.
History has taught them that lesson.
History should have also taught us that energy transitions take a multitude of decades.
The shift from wood to coal took 100 years. The shift from coal to oil took 100 years. And neither wood nor coal is as intertwined with almost every facet of society as fossil fuels.
Riddle me this: what would happen if the most zealous climate activists got their wish and tomorrow the world ceased using all fossil fuels?
The answer is indisputable: the entire world would come to a grinding halt.
Despite this, the climate contingent wants to sue for damages, which if successful, would mean that most of the products we use in everyday life would instantly become more expensive.
Then thereโs the hypocrisy.
Advocates of the approach draw parallels with the tobacco industry. Iโll concede that point. There are parallels, but there are also stark differences.
The use of tobacco is a personal and voluntary act. Most people donโt have the option to not use oil and gas. And at the end of the day, who is polluting the environment? The manufacturer of a product or those who use it?
Do you think every state that has launched a suit has eliminated the use of all fossil fuels in their operations?
The answer is a definitive no.
Until they do, they would be well served to pursue alternative ways to reduce the damage from fossil fuels.
#greenhousegas #oilandgasindustry #fossilfuels #emissionsreduction