The plaintiffs in this case do not argue that one or another party is responsible for the ultimate emission of CO2. They argue that the oil companies recklessly and with the aim of increasing their profits deceived the public about negative externalities associated with burning oil/diesel/gasoline/etc. And that this reckless behavior led to certain damages for which the companies should now be punished both to help pay for consequences and to deter similar behavior by these and other companies in the future. I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this legal theory will hold up in court or if a jury will follow these arguments. But on a personal and moral level it makes sense to me.
Should a few dozen deaths -- as absurd as it is to put the blame squarely on oil producers and not on, for example, Chinese coal-burning plants -- be countered by the enormous number of lives saved because an oil company allowed people to heat their homes during freezing cold winters, to cool them during this heat wave, and enable millions of ambulance rides when people are having heart attacks, etc? I'd say oil, overall, is way net positive in its contributions to society. The fact that this county won't ban oil is evidence that virtually everybody agrees.
People paid for the positive externalities i.e. heating their homes, driving their cars. Those who didn't pay also didn't share in the benefits, their homes remained cold. Society does not owe the companies anything for the positive externalities, any debt was already settled in cash.
But the companies, according to the lawsuit, knowingly and recklessly hid the negative externalities (CO2 emissions and hence global warming) from public scrutiny. These externalities potentially impact everyone, no matter how much oil they actually consumed or how much they benefited from society's oil consumption. The county does not have to ban oil (which it wouldn't be empowered to, anyway) to make that point. You don't have to agree with it, but the arguments you have brought up do not address the complaint that plaintiffs have brought here.
No, they paid for the direct results, i.e. heating oil, gasoline. The externalities that result include having a functional society where millions of people don't die every year due to the weather, where innovative goods (many of which are produced using large amounts of oil) can be produced anywhere in the world and still end up on a store shelf very close to you (or even delivered), and where the majority of people are freed up from having to produce their own food supply. Whereas a few deaths are countable (and the connection from oil production to these specific deaths is highly specious), the positive benefits of oil and electricity are so massive and so embedded and crucial to society that they are literally incalculable.
Further, the amount paid is massively reduced due to the incredibly efficient global infrastructure dedicated to producing, refining and transporting oil, thanks (in part) to Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. Instead of paying $60 for a gasoline fillup, imagine the costs of finding oil-producing land, independently drilling for oil and personally refining it into gasoline. The fact that you don't have to do any of that, is the true "externality" that you've benefitted from, but no, you have not paid for.
Every single positive aspect of the production of oil you listed has been paid for by some consumer at the pump or in the store at some point. And by governments/taxes through subsidies for oil companies. Consumers and citizens not only paid for the cost of everything you listed, they also paid for the (substantial) profits of the oil company's shareholders. Yes, some of that value creation also benefited overall economic growth but that is the same for literally every kind of business transaction and economic innovation.
Overall, the quality of life for most people at the moment is certainly higher than it would have been if oil has never been developed as a natural resource. But the risk of unmitigated climate change (which largely is due to humanity's consumption of fossil fuels) is that this equation will shift in the coming years and the use of oil, coal, etc. will turn out to have had a net negative impact on human quality of life.
"will shift"? "will turn out to have had a net negative"?
They are suing today, it hasn't even happened yet, and you're lacking proof it will. "Might" is the word you should be using, not "will." "Might not" is a lot more probable, however.
The effects of climate change are already apparent and are impacting millions of people negatively every year. That is exactly what the lawsuit in question alleges regarding this single county. And on a global level, waiting for a risk to turn into a certainty before acting is how you get your civilization destroyed, so I’d rather listen to the best available data and act immediately.
If 50% of fossiful fuel consumption is necessary and beneficial and 50% costs more than people benefit then getting rid of the latter will make everyone better off.
