The ready availability of hydrocarbons is a pretty significantly public good. Secondarily, the oil industry was one of the first ones regulated ( Sherman Act ) and when an industry is regulated, they get better and better at finding the edges to slip past over time.
"In health and sciences this would be enough to.." is a massive problem, IMO. If the full measure of tobacco law is brought to bear on "energy companies", you could pretty well wreck the US economy without meaning to.
It appears to be clearly in the middle cigarette processing phase of actively denying any science, passing state laws prohibiting local control (see for example Dallas Texas). I expect it will take a while to get to the levels of the late cigarette industry (recognition that it has impact and controlling it to reduce danger).
The problem is that there's nothing illegal about "actively denying science." Nor should there be. The science of earthquakes is unlikely to ever be capable of even making those sorts of predictions. But who knows?
As socially agreeable as the D.O.J v Phillip Morris decision may be in many circles, it's a terrible precedent.
All - all - prohibitions are Bad.
I don't think there will ever be any "control"; if there's regulation of it, the effect will be to send people out of the business. You'll be left with the people who feel up to tangling with the government over it. Guys like Dick Cheney.
"In health and sciences this would be enough to.." is a massive problem, IMO. If the full measure of tobacco law is brought to bear on "energy companies", you could pretty well wreck the US economy without meaning to.