They just refuse to cover certain things in areas affected by them. Fire in California, flood in Florida and there is apparently nothing we can do about it.
The same groups of people own majority shares in both industries, that'd be like the left hand sueing the right. Corporations are never going to save us from other corporations.
This (broadly speaking) is the solution - big shit doesn't happen unless billionaires profit from it, gotta pit billionaires against each other or make it in the best interest of money to make a better world.
Wouldn't really work that way. The fossil fuel companies aren't using the fossil fuels. It's their customers who buy it, then burn it and put the pollutants in the air. Legally, the liability would be at that last step.
Yes. But the difference there is big tobacco was liable to their customer. That was really a product liability issue, which primarily goes to the buyer. The secondhand smoke lawsuits haven't gotten much traction in terms of financial liability for the tobacco companies.
anunexpectedgourney
They are owned by the same people. Not likely
unfortunatelynotdeadyet
They just refuse to cover certain things in areas affected by them. Fire in California, flood in Florida and there is apparently nothing we can do about it.
ragingzealot
The same groups of people own majority shares in both industries, that'd be like the left hand sueing the right. Corporations are never going to save us from other corporations.
mksu
That would be hilarious, but it's also probably not going to happen.
khopesh87
ChewyTheWookie
*climate crisis
https://www.defense.gov/spotlights/tackling-the-climate-crisis/
RhymingEverything
This (broadly speaking) is the solution - big shit doesn't happen unless billionaires profit from it, gotta pit billionaires against each other or make it in the best interest of money to make a better world.
StrandedonEarth
Yup.
sambaah05
Wouldn't really work that way. The fossil fuel companies aren't using the fossil fuels. It's their customers who buy it, then burn it and put the pollutants in the air. Legally, the liability would be at that last step.
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
But they knowingly concealed and denied the damage it was causing. Just like big tobacco did
sambaah05
Yes. But the difference there is big tobacco was liable to their customer. That was really a product liability issue, which primarily goes to the buyer. The secondhand smoke lawsuits haven't gotten much traction in terms of financial liability for the tobacco companies.
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement similar to the rulings against Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis. It's not just the people who purchased the products who can be held liable
sambaah05
So that is an exception. States passed specific laws, extending that liability for medicare expenses to third parties. Without those laws the states passed, there is no general liability for fossil fuels that extend past the person who bought and used it. That can change in the future if additional laws are passed. But it's not the case right now. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37810153_Denying_Due_Process_in_the_Florida_Courts_A_Commentary_on_the_1994_Medicaid_Third-Party_Liability_Ac