For some, the changes from increased CO2 in the atmosphere was to be expected. Those who live on the land, been involved with agriculture from the 70s or 80s, might have noted a stark shift in weather patterns, perhaps even wondered if all that burning oil was making a difference. But from 2001 with the grounding of primarily jet planes for some weeks around the world, those in urban centres or downwind that suffered haze surely would have concluded even a small amount of burnt fuel could make a huge difference.
The science on this is not new, decades even but the statistics are firming up the globe has entered a new phase. There's been articles before which have oil companies knowing or being quite aware there was a price to be paid down the track. [2]
From the article:
"Most of these lawsuits were not filed by tattooed, vegan anticapitalists, but by sober-minded public officials desperate for money to repair sea walls, fight more intense wildfires and prepare their cities for a hotter world. Many are motivated by a lesson that many of us learned when we were children: You break it, you fix it. Why shouldn’t that apply to fossil fuel companies whose products have ruptured the climate?"
Yes that's about the crux of why and their thinking. But is it really just oil companies? Sure-thing they lobbied and dulled the alarms ... but those in urban precincts, have had a generation to plan better for transport, just imagine how many people would adopt cycling if there was all weather covered bike infrastructure throughout the city and suburbs. Car companies too have kept with 4 stroke engines and ignored designs with better efficiency because it wasn't that convenient.
[1] https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2026/10/07/opinion...
[2] https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defen...
Edit, punctuation.