"But what if we try to stop destroying the planet and someone else keeps making more profits by continuing to do so?! How is that fair on our shareholders?
How are we supposed to keep increasing our revenue under those conditions? I don't think you are thinking about what's really important here"
I hate that this is basically accurate and I also hate that "but Tommy over there isn't yet forced to do his homework so I'm not doing mine" is a legally winning argument.
If the options are "I die, my pets die, my entire family dies, a slow painful climate and pollution-driven death"
Vs
"these 20 companies get permanently shut down, their resources reallocated, their infrastructure dismantled and repurposed, their employees find new jobs potentially repurposong said industry, and executives get locked in solitary for the rest of their lives"
I know which I'd pick.
And if it's legal to use lethal force when defending one's life and one's family, then it's legal to use lethal force to defend one's life and family
Companies can die without a single real human being hurt.
The first amendment allows for free speech the second amendment affords the citizenry the right to bear arms to protect against tyranny. The corpocracy is tyranny.
Don't be too modest, we will take countless species with us. Some are already relegated to museams due to nothing but human interference. Yes the giant rock will persist but we will disturb enough life to seriously jeopardize the future of many if not most forms of life.