[matt_wulfeck]

> When do we hold someone responsible for a harm? What if the harm is climate change?

We all burned oil in our cars. We didn't make an effort to carpool because it wasn't convenient. Skipped days riding our bike to work because it's too cold, etc.

To me holding the blame entirely on the oil industry is akin to persecuting prostitutes for sex crime.

[galo2099]

It's all about power. Prostitutes do not have power. They do not buy the government. They do not run ad campaigns saying that fidelity is a hoax.

The oil industry has a lot of power. They even have their own party in american politics, the GOP or Grand Oil Party.

[SilasX]

That wouldn't accomplish anything; it would just free up more fossil fuels to be applied to marginal uses by people with far less restraint: "Hippies don't like oil? More for me!"

This is a collective action problem; if we don't collectively limit or penalize the emissions, we're just leaving grass on the commons for someone else to graze.

With that said, cutting back can prepare you for the time when collective limits or taxes are in place. It can also signal your own belief in the seriousness of the problem. But individually refusing to overgraze the commons cannot be blamed for commons going barren; the refusal to implement real limits, however, can.

And no, subsidies for more efficient grazing aren't "limits"; they make it worse.

[chris_wot]

Did you deliberately obfuscate, falsify documents, spend millions on misleading advertising, attempt to buy off critics or fund massive lobbying of law makers to make legislation become more favourable to yourself and increase your profitability?

[dsp1234]

Combining the two, would still have done this:

"We didn't make an effort to carpool because it wasn't convenient."

if the oil companies had not done this:

"deliberately obfuscate, falsify documents, spend millions on misleading advertising, attempt to buy off critics or fund massive lobbying of law makers"

If you think the answer is obviously yes, then also please think about the dramatic turn in smoking statistics since it was revealed that the cigarette companies were acting in the same manner.

[chris_wot]

Um. I'm having difficulty parsing your question. Are you saying we wouldn't have behaved in the way we did if petrol companies didn't do all those dreadful things?

[dsp1234]

There are certainly a lot of 'not's in the statements, so I apologize for the confusion. I was trying to keep the previous comments pure.

At a basic level:

Would we have taken the same actions, if the oil industry had not taken the same actions?

If someone thinks the answer the question is, 'obviously yes', then I'm suggesting they look at the results of the revelations of the same actions by the tobacco industry.

If someone thinks anything else, I'm not making any specific statement.

[intended]

I think something else, because I don't think that individual human choice is the only driver of society, and modern human civilization.

This is precisely the role of policy and governance - we don't use CFCs for example, and we move towards more progressive emissions norms around the world every year.

lots of people would be tremendously happy to wait for tomorrow to make a difficult moral choice, even if it was obviously immoral.

And then there's additional fallout. The improvement and evolution FUD. A series of catchy rhetorical arguments, has given birth to "deniers", and the amazingly made expertise itself toxic.

And with the web, this malaise spreads over the English speaking web and infect other countries, forums and communities.

So, yes - as a society we would have taken different decisions and at a different time scale.

[chris_wot]

Ah. I thought that might be what you were saying - thanks for clarifying :-)

I don't believe we would have taken the same actions, or at the very least we would have modified our behaviour at lot sooner.