>

Abolish the oil companies, prosecute the executives, nationalize the oil supply
For starters it's not exactly a new leak, and it's not the first time something like this has happened either. Leaded gasoline was known to be dangerous before it was even released and they pushed for it anyways. We still use it in aviation to this day as well.  
If we don't even prosecute people in charge for things like the GM ignition switch deaths, there's little hope we'd prosecute ExxonMobil for hiding climate change studies. We need greater penalties for corporations who harm society like this but that will never happen with the modern Republican party unless Democrats gain a supermajority. >

It makes some degree of sense to use leaded gasoline in small engine aircraft - if something goes wrong with the engine (leaded gasoline reduces knocking) it's a whole lot worse than in a car.
Jets and large planes use jet fuel, not leaded gas. The twin engine Cessnas aren't really contributing much to the issue. >


It makes some degree of sense to use leaded gasoline in small engine aircraft - if something goes wrong with the engine (leaded gasoline reduces knocking) it's a whole lot worse than in a car.

It's just industry lobbying because it would be expensive to develop and test a new aircraft engine for small planes. Small engine planes are just way behind auto engines and are essentially obsolete, but the market for small engine planes is small enough that there isn't much incentive for new development. >

Yeah, it's the small market and the proliferation of older engines that won't get replaced any time soon. It's also such a small amount of overall fuel use that it's really not worth stressing about. >


It's also such a small amount of overall fuel use that it's really not worth stressing about.

I have no way of knowing how accurate this statement is. It's reasonable for me to guess that it doesn't pose a great risk to the general public but I'm not sure that it's not a risk to people who are passengers or operate small engine aircraft. I would guess there's still utility in forcing small aircraft to upgrade to modern engines. >

There would definitely be utility in forcing the switch, but the actual result would just be that hobbyist flying mostly ceases in the states. There's a ton of 30+ year old engines that are still operational, and it's an extremely expensive hobby. When faced with the choice between a $30k (or more) engine and scrapping the plane, there's gonna be a lot of people choosing the later.
Not that hobbyist flying is some sort of inherent moral good or something worth preserving, either. >

Okay, so if we can wave our magic wand to get a compromise, force the switch on new small planes and let hobbyists take their own risks with old ones?
I realize that we're arguing about micromanagement of small risks but I hope someone is thinking about small issues like this. >

Magic wand solutions and I'm 100% on board with it. I just don't see much point in spending billions of dollars upgrading Cessna engines when we should probably be investing that money in moving away from fossil fuels entirely elsewhere. Killing off coal will do so much more for air quality and improving health outcomes than any amount of investment in cleaning up aviation fuel standards. >

Eh, fair. I guess there's limited capital and opportunity cost. I'd hope that EPA hires economists/analysts to do analyze cost/benefit of different regulatory policy like this. >

Reminds me of the Tobacco Companies who knew that their product would kill people who used tobacco the way it was supposed to be used, and covered up that fact for decades.
It is a long tradition of businesses to suppress information that would hurt their bottom line.
In the 1920's former WWI Ace Eddie Rickenbacker formed the Rickenbacker Auto company offering an automobile with 4 wheel brakes at a time when all other cars were made with just 2 brakes on the rear wheels. The other car companies conducted a smear campaign against the Rickenbacker car, absurdly claiming that 4 brakes were unsafe, causing an abrupt stop. The Rickenbacker Car company folded and subsequently, other car companies began offering cars with 4 brakes once their inventory of 2 brake autos has sold.
Similar story can be told regarding asbestos and health risks.
Here's a bit of irony from Wiki:
In March 2016 the Rockefeller Family Fund announced plans to "eliminate holdings" of ExxonMobil.[114] The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund both backed reports suggesting that ExxonMobil knew more about the threat of global warming than it had disclosed. David Kaiser, grandson of David Rockefeller Sr. and president of the Rockefeller Family Fund, said that the "...company seems to be morally bankrupt." >

Wow, the car one is stunning, but there were so many stories of automakers sabotaging others back then. >

Nationalize the entire energy industry and put an extreme emphasis on eliminating fossil fuels ASAP while investing massive amounts of money (perhaps the billions we should appropriate from fossil fuel company executives past and present?) into renewable energy. >

We can't even get all the states to realize renewable energy is the path forward. Heck Wyoming is trying to get rid of EVs by 2035. >

That's why we need enforced mandates from the federal government. Climate denial is alive and well in conservative/Republcian circles. The market has had plenty of time,m. It's not moving fast enough. It needs a kick in the pants from the government. A habitable planet is at stake. >

Actually in this specific case, I think that the individuals who made these decisions as well as the companies should be punished.
It is difficult to overstate how many people's lives have already been ruined by the actions that these people took - why should they not be held accountable?
In this case, they should be held accountable for their actions. In the sense that the companies must be a) punished and prevented from doing such things again (i.e. probably disolved or taken over by the state) and b) fined with the money going to climate restructuring efforts and the people involved should be imprisoned for a length of time proportional to the crime (in this case many decades) and have their assets confiscated and turned to climate related projects. >

This is a reasonable answer: the people who made the decision to ignore their findings and obstruct the fight against climate change willfully made a decision that will cause hundreds of trillions of dollars in economic damages and will cost millions of humans their lives, and will make billions of people's lives worse off.  They caused a very real and measurable amount of damages: in any other case people would be able to sue for those damages and win. >

Disband and Nationalize.
They lied about keeping the prices down for their subsidies, they lied about the damage they were doing to our environment in the name of continued profits, if they cannot be trusted to act in our interests with such material, they cannot be trusted to control said material period.
The Execs and Shareholders will be left thankful if it doesn't lead to their personal assets being seized and them being sent to prison for the rest of their lives for such flagrant committing of fraud against the American people. >

The problem is always profitability. The concept of a community running its power development and energy production is automatically tied to a type of government that also controls its people under an iron fist. And doesn't allow them the freedom to earn money. Which is stupid. But it is also what the big corporations like EXXON have drummed into our heads to avoid their company being replaced. We need to educate people on the concept of nationalizing the energy research and production without it meaning total power I'm the hands of a boogeyman government. >

It's not tied to a type of government controlling people with an iron fist. We have government run services such as libraries, schools, and firefighters and they're hardly oppressive. Government agencies are only as oppressive as the government in power. Large private corporations are almost universally exploitative because the only thing that matters is profit. >

There's such a myopic obsession with negative rights in the US that's hard to get people to break away from. 
Once the government stops interfering in peoples' personal lives, the assumption is that everything else is fine and everybody is free. We have so many examples of how that is demonstrably false. >

Exactly, it's like everyone is circle jerking about Raegan saying "the worst thing you can hear is I'm from the government and I'm here to help", when in reality he was describing his own administration that targeted minorities with draconian crack cocaine laws while funding literal terrorists in Nicaragua with arms sales to Iran while the CIA was helping smuggle cocaine from the same terrorists into America. >

In general, it's very apparent that multinational corporations will step in wherever allowed by the government or lack thereof. 
Instead of being living under the boot of a political entity interested in power, you are living under the boot of a corporation where the rules of your life are created to bring profit.
People seem so eager to forget the period of history barely more than 100 years ago when workers were all but the official property of their employer. They lived in the company town, shopped at the company store, had tenancy in a company house or flat and that meant no worker leverage whatsoever. Anyone demanding better conditions could get excommunicated from their entire community. >

Well said. When people say that we need fewer regulations on corporations I usually say to tell that to West Virginia coal miners after the Bull Moose special. It seems like many people are ignorant or willfully ignorant of past exploitation of workers. >

...and nothing will happen. The rule of law is a farce. We are seeing it in real time every day. Laws were made by the rich for the rich. >

What laws were broken? >

It’s real GOP. Please open your minds a bit and accept reality for once. Also our elections are safe and secure and have been for the last 200 years. The deranged thinkers only have doubts now so please stop and handle that life after Covid will be different than you are use to and that’s okay. >

Even before discussing anything about punishment, oil companies should be nationalized. Its obvious that the profit motive being involved with such important resources is far too dangerous for the environment and democracy. 
As for punishment, the shareholders shouldn't be compensated for the expropriation, and the fortunes of the largest shareholders since the 70's should be seized. Any punishment that doesn't punish shareholders or take away their power to do these things isn't a valid punishment. >

Nationalize irreplaceable industries ruining the planet for profit. If it’s a necessity, and you’re providing it in a way that fucks us all over, and there is no competition, you don’t deserve rewards. >

They should be required to double their contributions to the politicians in their pocket. >

Did you read the thing you quoted?  A science editor for a magazine made a statement about chilling, not scientists. They shouldn't be conflated, but often are.
At the time, there was no scientific consensus about run-away global cooling.  There were 7 scientific papers promoting the idea of long-term cooling trends being likely, 40 saying global warming was likely to dominate, and 20-30 with neutral predictions.
Even in the relative infancy of the day, scientists understood that various factors having forcing effects on the climate.  These include the tilt of the Earth, the amount of solar radiation, the degree of pollutants and dust in the air, and the extent greenhouse gases trap radiation.
In the 1970s, dust and pollution were the main forcing factors.  What changes?  A much greater amount of greenhouse gases, and the Clean Air Act of 1967 being put into motion after the founding of the EPA.  Without as many aerosols reflecting light in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases became the dominant forcing factor.
This doesn't mean it was a negative to reduce pollutants in the air, and greenhouse gases were rising factor than aerosols even in 1970, which is why so many scientists predicting warming even in the face of a 30 year cooling trend. >

there is a 3 part documentary about this very thing. Cant remember its name and would like to watch again. one of he most thought provoking docos I have seen for a long time >

They should get the same treatment the cigarette companies got and for the same reasons. >

A better question is what can be done to hold the people, who believed petrochemical companies about global warming, accountable. >

I’d love to see them broken up and liquidated. Will it happen? Probably not. >

Extensive financial penalties based on number of years since they’ve known they were deceiving the general public so that they could profit on us, these are profit bandits obviously as history has proven. >

There’s actually nothing you can do because it was an internal study. Get on with your life and focus on other things that actually matter. >

What will be done about the multi-millionaires who are killing the planet.  Haha.  Nothing.