Do you agree with California’s decision to sue fossil-fuel companies?

👍 Yes (46%) – "The oil companies have been lying to the American public for years about the effects of fossil fuels on the environment to make more money. It is time they were forced to take responsibility. Congress can't do it because so many congressmen and senators are reliant on the oil companies political donations for their own re-election. In many ways it is similar to the tobacco companies being sued and forced to take responsibility about the safety of their products. after lying to the American public."

• "It should not come as this much of a surprise that the most wealthy companies work the hardest at concealing the truth of their destruction. Big Oil is only one member of this very serious systemic problem that needs addressed asap."

"Clear deception by oil companies just like tobacco. These companies put profits over people despite saying they don't. Harm to our planet is likely irreversible, if any group of companies regularly poisoned your water you'd be incredibly mad, poisoning our air is the same. Just because you can't see or taste it doesn't mean it isn't happening."

• "Thalidomide, tobacco, asbestos, fiberglass, sand-blasting. Our recent history is studded with examples of "Big Corp" turning a blind eye to the risks of their products and practices in the pursuit of short-term gain. Each of those "too big to fail" industries faced numerous class-action suits and paid the price. The only thing that is different about the oil industry is "that was then, this is now." The only caveat is that it should have been done thirty or forty years ago instead of just now."

👎 No (44%) – "The state is better off putting money into these companies to help reduce their footprint. These lawsuits are a waste of time and money and will have no effect. What is the endgame? To put these companies out of business so these necessary goods are even more expensive for all of us? More reliance on dirty, climate blind foreign companies who are making our planet dirtier?"

• "I think the link California is trying to make is likely true in part. And when I say in part, I'm trying to verbalize the difficulties inherent to proving the elements of any sort of statute at this scale. Did execs know their product contributes to climate change? Yep. Did they knowingly continue to produce that product? Yep. Did their products cause ALL the climate change that led to conditions favorable to giant wildfires? Well...no. Did their products lead to a specific incident of damage that a court could point to and ascribe blame and consequence? Now you're not using science; you're talking hurt feelings. This is an attempt to force the oils and gas companies to be legally required to address climate change, and also for California to get back some money its hemorrhaging because of all the wildfires. But it's too targeted; why is California not suing China? Or cattle ranchers, or or or...?"

"No, you can’t blame this solely on the oil companies. They exist because there is a demand. Most of the world is complicit in the issues that we have today. This is nothing more than a political stunt and a money grab. We are all responsible for this."

• "While I do not disagree that Big Oil is hugely responsible, and has behaved reprehensibly over the decades, bringing suit against them is just a waste of taxpayer money and political energy. The case against them is much too nebulous to make stick."

🤷 Unsure/other (10%) – "It’s worth a shot if it makes moves to change practices of big oil, but I don’t have enough faith in the justice system to believe that this isn’t just a waste of time and resources."