• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    25 days ago

    You say that as if we weren’t massively subsidizing them, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by subsidizing the roads the cars that use their products drive on). You think that artificially-low price doesn’t have a massive impact on demand?

    • bitflag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      But again that’s not Exxon that is subsidizing roads or building cars, or forcing Americans to buy the biggest truck they can find. The issue is more complicated than “whoever pumps the oil out of the ground is liable for whatever happens to it afterwards”

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        It’s not about who’s fault it is; it’s about where to apply the policy leverage to obtain the correct behavior. I don’t give a fuck if Exxon is entirely blameless (and to be clear, they aren’t); the correct solution is still regulating Exxon.

        The notion that the only way we could ever possibly consider trying to solve the problem is by cajoling the public to change their human nature, because regulating a few corporations (that only exist as a goddamn privilege in the first place, by the way!) is somehow off-limits, is 100% pro-fossil-fuel-industry disinformation.

        • bitflag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          the correct solution is still regulating Exxon

          But it’s not! The correct solution is to kill the demand for oil.

          It’s not Exxon that burns the oil they extract, it’s the entire economy and consumers that buy it from them. You can regulate Exxon all you want, that won’t change anything about that demand and the burning.