@arstechnica
Noting that the defense of big oil seems to be that consumers are responsible because they demanded it from oil co's ... but then didn't those companies systematically hide and obfuscate the evidence of what their product was doing -for decades? Mens rea applies to corporate persons, I suspect. When you pretend your product is safe enough in order to carry on selling it, that should be something states can recover costs from.
@arstechnica I read a book called fossil future by alex epstien. Link here: https://www.amazon.com/Fossil-Future-Flourishing-Requires-Gas-Not/dp/0593420411 The environmentalist framework, at least the mainstream one catastrophizes side effects and ignores benefits. Remember that Paul Erlich, a prominent enviromentalist in the 70's, when he heard reports of profitable nuclear fusion being available by the 80's, remarked that power should be more expensive, not less and that it should be a crime for power companies to make power cheaper and encourage people to use more. Which is why the environmentalist movement feels threatened by nuclear power, because they don't want cheap clean carbon free energy, they want less wealth for everyone, especially the poor. Then again read the book and the sources alex epstien cites, don't just take it from me. Also read https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467 and https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/146-9274173-6563829?psc=1. I am not defending big oil, I am simply stating what is true.