[0thgen]

wouldn’t you also have to sue car drivers, consumers, and everyone else who touches the fossil fuel industry? (which is everyone)

also, what about lives saved / sustained through the use of fossil fuels? Do you subtract each climate related death by the number of ambulance trips and plastic used in medical products?

just thinking out loud here

[user_7832]

Not necessarily, if you look at the examples in the articles it’s not trying companies for “making/selling oil”, it’s for “making/selling oil despite knowing it was far more harmful, and covering up the data”. It’s the context of the action and not the action alone.

[tivert]

OK, then: sue car drivers, consumers, and everyone else who touches the fossil fuel who can be shown to have read about climate change and continued to use fossil fuels anyway, despite the harms.

[user_7832]

And what exactly are you going to sue them for?

[tivert]

> And what exactly are you going to sue them for?

Homicide, like in the OP.

[user_7832]

I don't think the purpose is to exactly sue for homicide, it may be to sue for homicide in the context of knowing something was worse and falsely advertising/pushing it. The average driver most likely has never done that.

[treyd]

The issue is intent and scale. There's clear evidence that fossil fuel corporations have attempted to mislead and defraud the public for material gain going back decades.

[0thgen]

Fair enough. Then it seems that should be the lawsuit rather than murder though