(06-16-2024, 08:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(06-16-2024, 08:15 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Whether you, or anyone, believe climate change is real is not the issue here. If just one entity succeeds in holding the oil companies responsible for it, then that sets a legal precedence which will potentially have big impacts on the common consumer. 

Let’s see if your self-righteousness shines as brightly when your abilities to travel are severely restricted and rationed because governments use that ruling to set onerous limits on the masses. 

Want to fly to Europe for a vacation? Sorry, you depleted your annual air travel fossil fuel usage quota when you attended that funeral last February. Furthermore, our centralized database indicates you’re also approaching the limits of annual gasoline usage.

Waaaait a minute.  How am I being self-righteous?

And by the way, I stated quite clearly that I do not approve of suing the oil companies.  

You're not. It was a clumsy use of the term. 

The point I'm trying to make is debating if an oil company has the resources to fight a lawsuit is not issue. They are being sued for the ultimate goal of forcing severe restrictions on the global populace. Climate change advocacy is all well and good until we're forced to ride bicycles to the store and have to burn our own fecal matter to recycle energy in order to stay within assigned energy quotas. Believe me, there are lots of people out there who would like nothing more than to subjugate the masses under such restrictions in order to comply with their agenda. Everyone except themselves, of course. 

On a side note, how the hell does Hawaii hope to sustain itself if tourists aren't burning fossil fuels to spend their billions there? That, in itself, illustrates the abject short-sightedness of their agenda.

---