>

Unlikely.
Iirc the Eisenhower Administration did a military study regarding the effects of Climate change so everyone knew. >

Climate change is a lot of things, but it's not news.  I remember reading about it in 1988 - this cover story in Newsweek magazine, in fact.   I haven't looked at the article since then but from what I remember it was pretty much on point.
Once something makes the front page of Newsweek magazine, it's not a secret any more.  I was 15 when I read that article and thought "wow, I hope somebody does something about this."  The fact that no one did is not Exxon's fault.  Their business was digging the stuff out of the ground so it could be cracked and burnt; no one was paying them to prevent a climate crisis, and no one was regulating them either.  Though they could have been regulated, had there been the will to do so.
EDIT:  Wow, 1912.  I guess we had every opportunity as a species to nip this in the bud, didn't we? >

If Exxon manipulated the world into inaction then they have a bigger part of the blame >

When the world allowed itself to be easily manipulated, you are giving the world too much credit. We’ve known about the harmful effects of carbon for way too long to pretend we’ve been misled and are innocent in all this. >

What does the boot taste like? >

Silly, unintelligent response. Carry on with your day. >

I see this headline every six months.  This is how encroached industries act when their primary product is found to literally be poisonous.
Big tobacco denied the link to cancer for decades, despite them knowing the damage.  Before that, the lead industry kept leaded gasoline in our cars.  There were Congressional hearings in the 1920's on the matter, but we did nothing.  
Big asbestos did the same thing under the same circumstances starting in the early 20th century.  And if we wanna go back to the 19th century, big mercury, which absolutely was a thing, acted in the same way when we tried to keep mercury out of our food as an admittedly effective preservative. 
They follow the same playbook every time.  You'd think we'd be able to counter them by now.
edit
This American Experience documentary on the literal poisons that used to be in our foods, and the fight against the industries putting them there, comes highly recommended.  You may need a VPN to view if you're out of the US. >

It's hard to solve a problem when rich and powerful people have a deeply vested interest in not solving it. >

...or obstructing the solution. >

...by elevating capitalism to a de-facto religion inside which alternatives are literally unthinkable.
To those who are inevitably going to say that socialism never worked... It worked incredibly well before and during the anarcho-syndicalist Spanish Revolution of 1936, which created an actual utopian society.
And no, the totalitarian regimes that followed weren't socialist in nature. At the very core socialism means workers owning and controlling the means of production. Also it must be social, hence social-ism.
Lenin disbanded the worker councils ("soviets") that had sprung up while he was in exile, killed all the actual socialists and he internally called his system state capitalism. Other psychopath politicians copied him because the promise of socialism had a lot of sway with the poorest most uneducated people, an untapped resource in formerly feudal nations. Well they didn't get it. Instead they got what narcissistic psychopath nationalistic politicians do: genocidal totalitarianism. And by that they thoroughly ruined communism. Which is ok, it always had an authoritarian bent.
(Stalin's "communists" in Spain betrayed and together with the fascists and monarchists actively fought the Catalonian socialists in the civil war leading to the socialist's  demise.)
Alternatives are still possible and they are working well, just not at the state level.
[e: fixed a link] >

Every other economic model we had saw even more destructive for environment than capitalism. >

Previous civilizations before the development of science often collapsed because of overuse of soil and resources. Capitalism is doing the same just with full knowledge of whats going to happen – and on a global scale.
But please list the other more destructive economic models you are familiar with. >

Feudalism, communism and every other widespread economic model you can think of. The only reason capitalism seems more destructive is because theres some 9 billion people using it. While if it were 9 billion under feudalism or communism with current technology, I'd wager things would be orders of magnitude worse.
The truth is capitalism is by far the most flexible of all those models and, combined with democracy, it creates opportunity to throughly regulate our economy the way we see fit. That's, again, unlike feudalism or communism where you're at the mercy of kings and dictators. 
But don't bother trying to put things into perspective, just keep screaming about capitalism for your free upvotes. >


Feudalism

was bad for the European forests at the time, since burning wood and coal were the primary sources of heat. Other than that it was pretty benign environmentally. Agriculture was mostly sustainable. That's how humanity got here. Many feudal societies were incredibly well managed: Egypt, Inca, Amazonian civilization... 

Communism

which really was totalitarian state capitalism falsely labelled as communism by its criminal leaders and its capitalist detractors. That's one of two main points in my original comment. Horrendous on the environment, yes. Not recommended.

Capitalism

Please observe the real effects and ongoing environmental collapse, despite ostentatious "opportunity to thoroughly regulate our economy the way we see fit". Despite technology to solve or at least massively decrease all our problems. We're at the mercy of multinational corporations and a monetary system based on extreme wealth extraction. It's inherent to capitalism.

just keep screaming about capitalism for your free upvotes.

You mad? I'm not motivated to write long comments based on research and historical evidence and having tedious discussions for upvotes. I'm pointing out common misconceptions because I'd love to live in a society an environment that's not terminally ill.
[e: typo, wording] >

I can't believe you've so little intellectual integrity you've stooped so low to actually argue that feudalism is more environmentally friendly than capitalism. But then again this is reddit, people are capable of writing the worst garbage just to avoid admitting they're wrong.
And if you think communism cared about the environment at all, you should read a history book. Communist countries absolutely ravaged their environment in their attempt to keep up economically with the West.
All in all, yes, you've jumped onto the capitalism hate wagon without using your brain at all, and now you're embarrassing yourself after being called out for it. >


And if you think communism cared about the environment at all

You're putting words in my mouth. Why?

you've stooped so low to actually argue that feudalism is more environmentally friendly than capitalism.

Instead of attacking the writer you really should back up your statements with actual arguments. >

Actual humans did this. Call them out by name. Not some incorporeal corporate logo. >

Well yes, but that’s the problem with corporations. They are corporeal (hence the name). They are legally people. Absurd. The structure itself is fundamentally flawed. >

If they are legally people, then we should be able to legally charge them with mass murder, and imprison them for life or even execute them. You want the rights of people? Welcome to the responsibilities of people. >

We need to find some equivalent punishment for these “people”.  Dole, exxonmobil, shell, marlboro, dasani, all are directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of million.  Youre telling me that legally they are considered “people” but the only punishment we have is to increase their taxes or impose a fine thats .05% of their annual profit margin? >

I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where these companies are prosecuted for literal crimes against humanity.