[Shinkei]

Really? The negative is that they didn't act in the best interests of humanity--the very people that make up their shareholders, employees, customers, etc.

For example, it's well documented that DuPont fought to continue using CFCs until they had secured patents on replacement products and suffered public humiliation by our government.

Companies will not generally act in the best interests of the citizens, which is why we have a government which should be independent of influence by leaders of companies.

[aaron695]

My point is if DuPont put out a doco warning everyone about CFCs don't put them down for that.

Use logic and talk about what they did do that's bad.

Shell is a mega corp full of different people and different departments.

Why are we using the fact part of the mega corp tried to make a positive change against them?

Why are we being negative about positive behaviour?

[zbyte64]

Seriously? This is an industry that is actively undermining climate policy. So yes, we are going to use this video against them and other oil companies until an actual (aka substantial) positive change happens.

Lastly, warning labels do not absolve a company of all responsibility.

[bluesign]

They tried to act in the best interest of humanity, but humanity didnt care about best interest of humanity. Companies will never act in the best interest of humanity if humanity dont care. Governments also dont care of the best interest if humanity, if their citizens dont care about humanity, they care about the best interest of their citizens.

Also people dont care about the best interest of humanity, if it doesnt line up with their personal interest (ex: car sales, car usage etc)