>

Not a conspiracy, just bad behaviour. The conspiracy is them funding climate denial
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. >

Unlikely. >

this has been public knowledge for a long time. >

We do live in a perfect world, as in we were created for this planet, we evolved and adapted around this environment, then we changed it and did so in a manner that is unstoppable, and rather than try and prevent making it worse we're still actively pushing on the gas. Shit is getting bad out there and its getting worse every day. 
I don't think we'll make it to another planet, we're not making enough progress, we may be the generation that is the peak of civilization. >

Ya, exactly. Something a lot of people don't think about - gravity. Sure, maybe you can replace an entire atmosphere (good luck doing that). But also good luck finding a planet that feels exactly the same as Earth's gravity. Think motion sickness on a species level. This Earth is an extension of our bodies. And I don't think O'neill cylinders are the solution. Personally I'd go insane being stuck inside a floating machine in space without an actual planet under my feet. >

I worked at XOM for a long time, was an executive, and internally we always accepted it. We had full on company-wide presentations with Sherri Steuwer (the exec in charge of climate at least for a time) where she acknowledged it, shows us all the science, showed what had to be done, etc etc etc.  Meanwhile we were funding almost exclusively climate deniers in Congress.  For a period our head of lobbying was a totally normal woman who since left for a similar job at an airline.  It was a weird cognitive dissonance I could never understand. >

Allow us to clear up the confusion:  $$$$$$$$$ >

But the money machine must go brrrrr!
Exxon and other big oil producers are the next generation of cigarette/Big Tobacco companies. They knew the dangers of their products for generations but continued business as usual and would have never stopped because of the almighty dollar.
The sickening thing, unlike Big Tobacco, is is primarily harming the consumer and limited others (second hand smoke, healthcare costs) Big Oil is wiping out biodiversity and limiting viable habitation for huge percentages of the world. 
It's saddening that, had they not actively fought back against the assumptions their own scientists were aware of and tried to contribute to change from the 70s onward, we could have successfully implemented something to reduce and avoid most of the worst effects. They should be taxed/fined out of existence and the proceeds utilized for alternative fuels and habitat rehabilitation. >

Sounds like the boards for these companies need to whipped out and they should be turned into non-profits. Where every bit of money they make is put into climate research. >

Plot twist - The US nationalizes oil and gets coup'ed by the CIA. >

That already happened in 1999. An environmentalist ran for president. The son of the former head of the CIA and former president was himself elected president under some shady fucking circumstances and despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin. His name is George and he is still a completely useless goddamn moron. Only now he spends his days in Texas painting instead of invading countries for absolutely fabricated bullshit reasons in order to seize oil fields to funnel profits to his oil oligarch buddies. But that's reality for you; the plot is written by the laziest of assholes. >

2000 was a judicial coup >

The price of denialism is the future >

can you explain what this means >

I'm not the person that you replied to, but they are saying that the consequences of denying and obfuscating the science about climate change (and other things) is that we are sacrificing the future of the planet.
Misinformation and disinformation are very valuable to the companies that benefit from generating doubt and delaying legislation to fix these problems... but the whole world will suffer the consequences of the delays. >

Or in other words:
Big lies make humanity's future go bye bye >

That's been public knowledge for a long time. That they used the playbook pioneered by the tobacco industry to publicly deny and obfuscate what they privately knew to be true all along. That deception extended by decades the period of unchallenged fossil fuel expansion and profits. >

Cool. Now sue them >

Arrest them and send them to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity >

And needs to be held accountable >

How are these companies not found for crimes against humanity and fucking dismantled or acquired by the government. >

ExxonMobil is pretty much a terrorist organisation hellbent on killing us all for profit. >

Because rich people know that when doom comes, they will most likely survive it because they have the means to. They're just going to take as much as they can until they can't, then live in their compounds.
I know of a group of cryptobros who made it big during the height of that whole thing... who post pictures of their compounds in Montana or wherever they're building to be as FAR AWAY from people as possible. 
They don't give a fuck about you. But hey, keep voting Republican, poor and middle-class! >

This is a crime against humanity. The people responsible for this should be on trial. This wasn’t ignorance. They knew what they were doing and deliberately buried the truth and obfuscated it. They put profit before the welfare of their fellow human beings. They made a conscious decision. Their actions were criminal. >

New report finds? This news broke like 10 years ago. >

Plenty of old reports came to the same conclusion already. >

Capitalism is a monster that will destroy us all. >

Hasn't this been well known for like, nearly a decade at this point? >

Hold them responsible for solutions and clean up...not just fines...direct their profits and costs...piss off their share holders and then you'll see change >

The scientists who did the studies should hang their heads in shame for allowing the lies to go unchallenged. >

New report?
I thought it was publicly and formally well known the energy sector intentionally played down global warming? >

Are we surprised? Profit>sustaining humanity. Get on board already. >

An actual conspiracy, but I guess not flashy enough for the "free-thinkers"