> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous.
That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused.
> Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency.
Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.
> No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil".
Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please.
> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them.
They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.