[gruez]

>A handful of corporations are responsible for the vast majority of warming. It's not our fault, it's theirs. They did it, and they knew they were doing it.

Consumers want oil. Drilling for oil is legal. BP drills for oil. Why is BP's fault?

Or, to switch around the entities a bit. America likes widgets. Making widgets generates pollution. Prior to the 90s it was mostly made in America, so that's where all the pollution is emitted. It's clear that America is to blame. Now it's the 2000s. Thanks to globalization it's now cheaper to make in China rather than the US. Now all the pollution is being emitted in china. Who's fault is it? Is America suddenly off the hook?

[guerrilla]

> Why is BP's fault?

Where have you been? You missed oil comapnies spending billions to misinform people, the corruption, the carteling, ghe cover-ups, the greenwashing and everything else?

[gruez]

Are you saying that "the vast majority of warming" is caused by "spending billions to misinform people, the corruption, the carteling, ghe cover-ups, the greenwashing and everything else"? While I would agree what they did is truly horrible, I'm also skeptical of the implied narrative that "if only we didn't have oil companies doing misinformation campaigns, climate change would be solved".

I'm also not sure how does "the carteling" refers to, and how that contributes to global warming.

[guerrilla]

If only we didn't have widespread climte change denial and minimizing caused by their broken incentives caused by failure to caputre externalities, yes, we'd be a hell of a lot further along.

The cartels were used to outcompete all alternatives and bend governments to their will. See 1979 for how just a 4% shock caused pandemonium.

[gruez]

>If only we didn't have widespread climte change denial and minimizing caused by their broken incentives caused by failure to caputre externalities, yes, we'd be a hell of a lot further along.

"a hell of a lot further along" is much more vague than the original claim of "responsible for the vast majority of warming". Furthermore, most of the climate change in the future is going to be caused by developing countries rapidly industrializing and getting richer. How much of that can be attributed to climate change denial?

>The cartels were used to outcompete all alternatives and bend governments to their will.

That doesn't sound like a cartel to me. Excerpt from wikipedia:

A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. [...] Cartel behavior includes price fixing, bid rigging, and reductions in output.

>See 1979 for how just a 4% shock caused pandemonium.

It's unclear how that's due to cartels. Shortages during covid shows that a supply/demand shock in any essential commodity will cause pandemonium (eg. toilet paper, hand sanitizer, mask).

[guerrilla]

> How much of that can be attributed to climate change denial?

Just as much because a hell of a lot further would include alternatives. We'd have or be on our way to a functioming market, which they'd just be entering into. Also, you can't deny the negative effecr of denial on global culture via education and media.

> It's unclear how that's due to cartels.

It seems like you're just in the mood to argue or something. I didn't say cartels caused the 1979 shock, I was using it to illustrate how much power the cartels had and have.