Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A series of climate lawsuits, which mainly appear to be targeting energy businesses which attempted to appease the green blob, have recently been launched around the world.
According to news.com.au;
New report paves way for individuals to sue companies over climate change
OVER the next few weeks a case will play out that will have executives all over the world very nervous.
Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy giant RWE, the self-described “biggest single emitter of CO2” in Europe, for $29,000 over what he claims the company is doing to his hometown.
Lliuya lives near the Andean city of Huaraz, under constant danger from a lake that threatens to flood the town and his house and farm along with it. He has watched the lake grow more than 30 times in volume in the last 40 years as the glacier that feeds it melts, and now wants enough money to engineer a solution.
So far, a letter of complaint to the company has gone unanswered and lawyers claim there is no legal basis for his case. But the farmer, backed by NGO Germanwatch is undeterred, and if successful, the unprecedented case could be the tip of the iceberg.
“It’s sometimes said you can’t do this stuff legally and the reality is that the barriers are political, not legal,” said West Coast Environmental Law Staff Counsel, Andrew Gage.
…
Despite the difficulty, the idea is gaining momentum in the legal space. Earlier this month the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines announced it would investigate whether fossil fuel companies could be held responsible for climate change following a petition brought to them by Greenpeace over the role of the “carbon majors” in global warming. Australian company BHP Billiton ranks number 19 in a list of major emitters topped by Chevron, ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco, according to the report.
Greenpeace international executive director Kumi Naidoo said he hoped the decision would inspire other human rights commissions to take part, saying: “If I were a CEO of a fossil fuel company, I would be running scared.”
BHP Billiton would not provide comment on the issue. However the company said it strongly supports efforts to reach the two degree global goal including putting a price on carbon. Their recent portfolio analysis into climate change said the company is working with governments and other groups to reduce emissions and provide energy for a developing world.
I’m not a qualified lawyer, but there appears to be a real risk, especially for businesses which have noisily declared their public support for environmental issues. How can a company plausibly reject a lawsuit for business activity related damage to the environment, when their PR department embraces claims that such damage is occurring?
To paraphrase a well known metaphor, if you sleep with greens, don’t be surprised if you wake up with lawsuits.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lawyers.
Kill them.
This study demonstrates the retreat of Andean glaciers over the last 10000 years. It makes specific reference to the more rapid melting from 1820 which matches the cessation of the little ice age
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110909111646.htm
A book such as le Roy laduries ‘times of feast times of famine’ amply demonstrates the advance and retreat of glaciers with a maximum retreat during Roman times, a maximum advance from 1580 or so and their subsequent retreat which, according to the part of the world they were situated in, ranges from 1750 to 1850
This farmer therefore seems on dodgy historic grounds unless his lawyers want to assert mans influence from 10000 years ago, or even from 1820
Tonyb
So…bury the lawyers in a glacier?
This is like blaming vampires, witches and other mythical creatures on problems that plague the low IQ riff-raft and the bottom-feeding lawyers that enable them.
Lawyers are evil until you need one
Even then, they are at best, a necessary evil
Often a. Good one will end up costing slightly less the what is saved, sand any.
Pretty much always a lawyer is only needed to protect from another lawyer.
A town too small to support one lawyer can easily support two.
Larry,
May I give a rationale?
“Despite the difficulty, the idea is gaining momentum in the legal space. ”
Bottom suckers seeking fat emoluments? No – it cannot be. Impossible.
Auto – just saying . . . .
first it was patent lawyers now it is climate lawyers, all doing their best to impede progress.
Lawyers.
Kill them.
Horrible thing to say. The rule of law is the foundation of our civilisation.
Martin A: “Horrible thing to say. The rule of law is the foundation of our civilisation.”
That would be the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers, a different thing altogether.
kill them tonight.
Bathe in greenwash wake up losing greenbacks.
Time to start suing Greenpeace, Obama, Miliband et al.
Sounds good, but they took all our money and cheap lawyers are expensive.
Governments need to claw back a lot of the money that has been spent on fraudulent and irresponsible AGW research. Institutions that have participated in the worst cases should be fined and banned from receiving government research funds for some time based on the amount of money received. Individuals should be fined, imprisoned in the case of provable fraud to secure government grants and banned from doing any governmental research for life.
In extreme cases, I wonder if journalists can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a fraud on the government or participating in a conspiracy to defraud the government.
Trouble is some governments have not only been very willing participants but have actively encouraged and funded research with the intent of de-industrialising the developed world.
They are typically elected and the people who suffer are the electorate. In the UK it has not been possible to take action against politicians for broken election pledges – i.e. seeking election under false pretence – it seems even the law takes the view that you are a fool to place any trust in politician’s promises.
I think that where governments or leaders, such as Obama perhaps, have been actively and knowingly involved in promoting bogus research and using tax payers’ money to pay for that then it surely amounts to fraud. That should lead to criminal proceedings. There was a time when it would have amounted to treason – but don’t hold your breath.
I think that where there should be cause for concern is into how the judiciary will react to any “environmental” compensation claims coming before them – and whether or not they will act as true guardians of the law and truth or allow themselves to cave under any political pressure applied.
The supreme court in Great Britain is currently dealing with FOI requests from Christopher Monckton and others over an environmental law conference held a few months ago at which some participants including at least one judge were seemingly predisposed in favour of supporting claims against those who have been ‘causing ‘ global warming’. No doubt more will emerge on that once the FOI deadline – this coming Friday from memory – has been reached and hopefully answers provided.
I suspect from what I have read that the judiciary in the US is far more susceptible (or is flexible a better expression ?) to political pressure than in the UK.
I have a feeling that there may be a carefully co-ordinated, behind the scenes campaign to persuade the judiciary to unquestioningly believe in AGW / climate change.
There are troubled times ahead and believers in democracy, truth and justice will need to be ready to defend them. It is rather ironic that in the anniversary year of Magna Carta that democracy is under such threat. In the UK it is our own politicians who have eroded that by handing our sovereignty to the EU and seem to firmly believe that an unelected, unaccountable global government (drawn from the likes of Greenpeace) is better than democracy.
Leo Smith says on December 14, 2015 at 10:08 am:
“Time to start suing Greenpeace, Obama, Miliband et al.”
Absolutely right, Leo. And let’s also expose the source of the billions they spend on spreading misinformation about climate.
That’s alotta sue-age!
Omg, lol, thanks for the laugh.
Regards
Climate Heretic
LOL – love your comment. Mind if I use it?
Sure Marlene – just don’t forget the royalties! 😉
Does M. Mann get a small royalty on each one, much like the inventor of the bar code? Every little bit adds up.
It would be interesting for the coal industry to simply go on strike for a month or two.
“Who is John Gault?”
“Galt”
sorry 🙂
“Who is John Galt” is the phrase which sprang to my mind too.
Nobody in their right mind thinks we can do without coal. Greg Hunt recently approved the Carmichael mine, though his stated reason for doing so is hilarious.
The damage IMO is politicians seem to be inserting themselves as “gatekeepers”, instead of the market being free, you have to go through channels, get the right political blessing, before you can perform your business activity.
It would really, really be interesting if all the US oil refinery employees were to simply go on strike for three (3) months or more.
The screaming of the “greenies” and the pro-CAGW politicians would be deafening.
Regardless the company’s PR, in a court of law cause and effect would come up.
That’s true, but said companies will find themselves in quite the cleft stick. Defend themselves vigorously and successfully, and they will face a PR backlash that may do as much damage as losing. Or, pay the greenmail and die the death of a thousand cuts as every third world rent-seeker tries to get his pound of flesh.
Old saying from medieval times when the Vikings were on a roll. — Once you pay the Dane gold, you never get rid of the Dane.
Eugene WR Gallun
DJH
No PR backlash. This will settle out of court for two Andean alpacas, a check for 1000 Peruvian Nuevo Sols (~$149USD), sealed transcripts and a gag order.
oops, actually 1000PEN appears to be ~ $298 USD.
You forgot the Western lawyers who are taking on the case…
Of course, this whole thing is spearheaded by the same greedy lawyers whom God said, would never see the Kingdom of Heaven. To sue these companies is to support the TPP’s agenda. Hypocritical fools never change – they just keep screaming their way into the ditch of ignorance they created.
“Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”
Ye deny us cheap power, yet fly to climate conventions in private jets. Ye take our guns, yet have armed guards about thee. Ye are a bunch of hypocrites.
Normally a court has to have jurisdiction over the defendant before it can entertain a case. However, courts can be corrupted by politics and it is likely that the venue for the lawsuit was chosen because it is very susceptible to political influence/corruption. I agree that this suit is dangerous for everyone. If the court awards damages to the plaintiff (which may be a foregone conclusion) , is the judgment enforceable outside of Peru?
look at the chevron ecuador case…
perhaps they should go after the biggest single global emitter…China…instead of a small potatoes European energy producer.
The beer bar solution.
If I were defending RWE i would open by offering a settlement. The farmer wants $29,000? RWE may be the biggest carbon emitter in Europe but its percentage of world carbon release is tiny. Offer a charity settlement (without admitting guilt) of two bucks. Then countersue for legal expenses and takes this man’s farm away from him. It is almost a certainty that he is in with the activist crowd and not some duped innocent.
Of course, the above can’t happen but still nice to sound off about after having a few.
Eugene WR Gallun
How can the Green factions plausibly expect to achieve their goals of “100% renewables” without co-operation from the mining industry??? Where do they think the materials to build their precious wind turbines and solar panels comes from? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you…
That’s why there are so few engineers in their midst. The plans that they propose can’t work due to numerous issues (that being just one of them). A windmill is just greenwashed oil power, as everything from the mining to the blast furnace that made the steel to transport, installation, and maintenance is some version of oil-fired power. Add to that the natural gas or diesel backup generators needed when the wind stops blowing, it’s oil all the way.
I swear they believe that wind turbines and solar panels are made in magical miracle workshops in the Amazon rain forests by little Indians in grass skirts who make them out of barks and twigs and that they are perpetual energy machines that run forever and ever and ever….
These are delusional people who believe in total fantasies. The blindest of faiths.
+1
Of course, the cost of any legal action will be passed on to the energy company’s customers, who will not be happy about higher prices. It is at that point that green goons will learn of the limits of these sorts of legal actions. The point where they actually step in and prevent people from getting cheap energy is the point where the whole green enterprise comes to a halt.
In the US the legislature can step in and make these companies immune from such suits such as they have done with the arms industry. I can’t see any legal action that adversely affects everyone being sustained.
Q: How can a company plausibly reject a lawsuit for business activity related damage to the environment, when their PR department embraces claims that such damage is occurring?
A. Setting aside the jurisdiction issue (i.e., assuming jurisdiction in that venue),
for there to be liability there must be inter alia: 1) a legally recognized injury (a cause of action under the law, e.g., negligence); 2) to the plaintiff (= “standing”); and 3) the defendant’s actions must have proximately caused that injury.
I don’t know enough of the facts of the case or the legal theory being asserted by the plaintiff here to conclude, however, the reason the German attorneys did not respond is likely because there is NO cause of action under the law which imposes a duty of care on that defendant to protect that plaintiff from that injury.
The plaintiff has the burden to prove “nexus” or “causation.” If CO2 is the alleged agent of damage, the plaintiff, for the foreseeable future, can NEVER prove that.
People sue non-liable deep pockets all the time, hoping they will weigh the cost-benefit of defending and settle. I hope the defendants fight this to ultimate victory over the Green Opportunists. And, yes, if they run into enough politically corrupt judges, they will have a long, uphill, battle — but, the fight is worth it.
The trees near my house will fall–SOMEDAY!! Can I therefore sue the developer for future damages that I MAY incur for monies to remove the threat beforehand? How about GM for my car that MAY fail and injure me?
So many moneymaking possibilities.
How about GM (mirthless laugh)? There is a tort case in many law school textbooks in which the plaintiff sued GM because………… they made a car that could go very fast which proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. I — kid — you — not. Well! Sad as those injuries like were, there was a supervening causation: the nut behind the wheel.
Cute, almost as cute as your name, Buster Brown. 🙂
Nope. That would be a “nut” of the same type who is operating the socket wrench in that photo.
lololol
Buster Brown and Janice Moore — Hmm. Looks like the driver is a lefty (steering wheel on the right).
Keep in mind this suit is occurring in Peru, will these requirements apply there? I am guessing the greens “shopped” this venue carefully.
Janice Moore
I think its a setup. note the ridiculous low dollar figure $26,000.
Its to set a precedent, so that deeper pockets can be raided.
RWE, should in turn bill Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya for the extra irrigation water.Or better make deal Nestle to drain the lake and sell the bottled water. That would teach them to look a gift horse in the mouth
michael 🙂
Arrrg correction … made a deal with Nestle….
You’re probably right, Michael D. (not a). Good insight. I got so eager to write about the nuts and bolts I overlooked that! Remember, though… likely the damages asked for did not include attorney’s fees and costs… which could easily run into triple (or more) digits… . IF there is an attorney’s fee/cost provision in the statute (or from some other law) for an award to the winner… also, depending on the statute (or common law being applied), there might be exemplary or treble (or other) damages. Well, EVEN SO, I think you are likely to be correct.
Hmmm…He is a farmer, Right??
All that they need to do is to compare yearly increases in his farm’s net production volume relative to the net increases in relative CO2 brought on by fossil fuel consumption a determine that the CO2 increase has had a Net positive effect on his farming production.
Then charge him for the fertilizing gasses they help produce
Percisel, likely close to 20% of his production is from 400 ppm CO2, each and every year.
This is far easier to prove then any warming or harm.
Bryan — applause for that ingenious idea!
And David A — (great analysis and) thank you, from one who regularly makes typos on WUWT, for “percisel” — I needed a chuckle today. I LOVE TYPOS — they (usually) make me smile!
Janice, you are a font of wisdom, wit, good sense, kind heartedness, sound advice on everthing, entertainment and boundless fun. You make the battle enjoyable.
GARY PEARSE!! I thought you had decided to ignore me in perpetuity! Thank you, so — very — much.
And, Mr. Pearse, I must tell you that you gave me a gift (oh, I just hope you read this) about 1.5 years ago. When a certain nameless regular WUWT contributor of articles praised hyperbolically the beauty of a pretty, but, not exceedingly so, science magazine editor, you said something to the effect of:
Gary Pearse: “{Name}, for men of our age {and I’m guessing around 65}, the world has become full of beautiful women.”
MISTER PEARSE! That means (if I understood you — and I also must say that your intellectual ability and very common sense view of life make your opinion on this matter likely to be that of the majority of men, thus, it has significance for me) –> that men of my own age will still think I am beautiful when I am older. “Why in the world does that matter to you, Janice??” thundered Gary Pearse.
Because….. it just does. Not going to go on about THAT issue, here!!
So, thank you for that. (you see, I thought that men of all ages only thought women under 40 or so were beautiful, so I had little hope of a certain dream coming true… but — I BELIEVE IT CAN! Not that it necessarily will, but, just knowing it is possible…)
Oh, boy. That was kind of embarrassing to write — BUT, I wanted to: you gave me a gift (and the women friends I’ve shared it with — you made them happy, too!).
Sincerely,
Janice
Way to go Janice……Now Gary is turning ” 50 Shades of Red ” !!! LOL
Oh, Marcus, he really shouldn’t, you know. My “dream” is not about him… there is someone in that spot in my heart — forever (just looking pretty grim as to the dream-come-true part of the whole scenario… sigh… but! there IS HOPE! 🙂 …. thus, I was so grateful for Mr. Pearse’s remark.
Yes, but, all that is needed is for a judge to allow the complaint to go forward to a jury. It can be either a tort theory, a contract theory or even an equitable theory and the plaintiff can plead all three. For example, if a company made admissions as to damages it caused and pledged to assist in mitigating the damage they caused, then a compliant judge may let the lawsuit proceed to discovery. That same compliant judge could easily rule the company created a duty and/or contract with humanity, etc., etc.
Proof: Nearly all the governments of the world just proclaimed and formally signed and declared carbon is polluting the planet via hydrocarbons and it must be stopped. Who cares about the how – the damage is being done. The energy companies agree. What more do you want? Recall, this is 2015 when fundamental rights are being discovered seemingly every hour of the day if not by compliant judges then by bureaucrats and government. The farmer will simply point out the treaty and all those governments using the “best, setteled science”. If the energy company attempts to make the farmer prove cause, all the farmer need do is point to the companies out-of-court statement (called a party admission) where they support the “settled” science, etc., etc. Even easier would be for a judge to rule the Paris agreement is a law and thus, by law, carbon is a harmful pollutant.
Anyone want to wager on the Greens filed in a court that is likely to have a compliant judge? Actually, if filed in any of the EU nations, this just might be a slam dunk for farmer.
I’d put better than even odds that redistribution will simply be imposed by the judges.
There is of course no measurable damage from anthropogenic CO2. But to demonstrate there is no damage, companies have to repudiate some of the statements made by their own PR departments. So they either cave in and pay up, which might well bankrupt them when everyone else piles on with their lawsuits, or admit they were lying to the public, and probably their own shareholders – a nasty dilemma of their own making.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/20/washington-state-judge-constitutional-obligation-to-act-on-global-warming/
Perhaps too much of an all or nothing approach.
Try thinking like them.
If your strategy is parasitic in nature, you don’t want to kill your host.
You want to extract your piece while “allowing” them to operate in your domain.
From their point of view, the business they are suing is the parasite, “using” the resource/land/community for their own gain. It comes from a “feeling” that wants to get even. A powerful, victim role. Many areas have the inflamed hatred of generations based on the profiteer who took the money and ran leaving behind a diminished land.
You’ll also see various iterations of the “CO2 class action” driven approach.
20B dollars from the BP experience was a real eye opener for community groups.
My opinion of watching these shenanigans unfurl is much like the tolerance for organized crime.
Most will give a little to get along as the path of least resistance.
I don’t have answers but Phase II is where the supporters “get some”.
The political party that supports them “getting some” will get the vote.
No justice, no peace.
It’s gonna get messy.
Parasites never consider the survival of the host. They think there will always be new victims.
Eric Worrall on December
14, 2015 at 6:25 pm
Parasites never consider the survival of the host.
They think there will always be new victims.
____
damn’d right, Eric Worrall.
Talking Evolution.
____
stand or deliver – saying.
stand or get extinct – meant.
____
Regards – Hans
TransCanada Pipelines should launch a suit against the US government for not permitting the Keystone pipeline to proceed as the US state department acknowledged it would have minimal effect on Climate Change.
“http://keystone-xl.com/transcanada-welcomes-u-s-state-departments-final-seis-on-keystone-xl/
“Keystone XL would have minimal impact on the environment, will create thousands of much-needed jobs and will bolster U.S. energy security.
There are legit environmental issues with the Keystone XL pipeline. That type of petroleum, bitumen, is really thick and requires serious pressure to move, so you have more chances of burst pipes. And it’s hell to clean up when it does spill. They’ve already had a few problems with spills.
Whne you think about it, pumping the bitumen all the way from Alberta to the southern US coast for refining is really dumb. Just build a refinery near to the tar sands. Problem solved for everyone.
It is mixed with thinner oil before being pumped..nice try !!
“Just build a refinery near to the tar sands.”
Cat-cracking refineries, which can process heavy oil, are expensive. And they run more economically in a warm climate.
Well, why can’t you sue an environmental body like IPCC, Greenpeace etc if you can’t afford to heat your home now they are banning coal, gas and other affordable energy sources?
Could you sue them for the extra healthcare costs due to having to switch off the heating more often in winter? I’m sure all the HMOs/the NHS in the UK would prefer you not to get ill due to such matters……
Perhaps an open house exploring ways to sue the ecofreaks into bankruptcy is called for?!
rtj I’d go to a conference on that topic.
That would be even more frivolous, and you cannot sue people for advocating things to the government. The acting party is, surprise, the government, who cannot be reviewed in such a fashion by the courts. Stupid laws with bad consequences are not against the constitution, so long as they are legal.
why can’t you sue an environmental body like IPCC
===============
the IPCC has requested legal immunity. imagine the suit for damages if it all turns out to be a mistake.
It’s true. People sit around and make up new and different ways to force us into believing AGW is real and catastrophic. For $29K it’s not even worth RWE to go to court except the precedent could be far reaching. A foe in court with unlimited money is formidable. This is just another alarmist claim that will never see a court docket and the alarmists know it. More insinuation, fear, and shaming is achieved regardless and that’s the goal. “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”.
Markl, I’m no lawyer, but from what the folks I know who are lawyers have told me, there would be much less of a legal precedent established if they settle out of court and no rulings are made. I suspect the “chump change” amount to be an attempt to grab some easy cash to remediate the purported danger, without having to fight for it. If this is remediation honestly needed, there are other sources of funding which could alternately be pursued.
My question is, if there is an out of court settlement based on anthropogenic climate change and the anthropogenic causation is disproved in the future, could the companies sue the claimants for recovery of the damages?
Dawtgtomis, in case Markl has much less time than I to answer you, and, thus never reappears here… (just FWIW):
1. Markl DID acknowledge that the precedent-setting aspect would be a rational reason to defend the lawsuit: …not even worth RWE to go to court except the precedent could be far reaching… . Markl.
2. No. (based on my limited knowledge) The settlement is a contract between the two parties which they must perform or be in breach of contract. The End. The answer from a legal standpoint would be only: was this contract legally formed and completely performed. Only if the companies suing for reimbursement could prove something like fraud in the inducement (that is, among the several elements of common law fraud, that the original plaintiff’s KNEW they were lying about CO2 and that the defendants could not reasonably be expected to have known that truth themselves, etc., etc..). Further, unless the attorney writing up the contract is quite a bumbler, there will be a contract clause that says something about the settlement being the full and final agreement between the parties and that they agree to give up the right to sue in court about it again (an arbitration clause would likely make binding arbitration (out of court) the only recourse for breach of the settlement contract itself).
3. In the U.S., out-of-court settlements create no legally binding precedent which is only created by the legislature (state or Fed.) or the courts (or by administrative (or “executive”) agencies acting in their quasi-judicial role (as opposed to their rule-making role).
There is, of course, the practical effect of appeasing such a plaintiff,…. invasions of Poland by the score…. . If the potential plaintiff class of the German defendant here is too small to make settlement a short-sightedly foolish move (or if they literally cannot defend this due to inadequate funds), eventually, there will be a defendant large enough that it can potentially be sued by so many plaintiffs that it will make it worthwhile to fight it out in court.
Janice Moore commented: “…. in case Markl has much less time than I to answer you, and, thus never reappears here… (just FWIW)…”
You did a better job of it than I would have 🙂
And, oh (eye roll), wow. Dear Moderator: would you please insert an “end italics” after the bolded text in item 1 in my 1:30pm comment above? Thank you. Sorry for the bother. (*blush*)
Markl,
Thank you. That was generous and kind of you to say so. “Better than I would have,” perhaps…, but not better than you could have, I have no doubt.
Hey, did you see what that Mod did??! Lol, she or he fixed — THANK YOU, MOD! — my italics mess-up, then…. left my “help me” note for everyone to seeohwell.
#(:))
Janice
Will this farmers descendents be able to sue again when the lake threatens to go dry from climate change of the opposite variety in a few decades?
I wonder why they didn’t sue ARAMCO and OPEC? Don’t they produce and flare off more than anyone else?
Can I create a class action suit against Greenpeace on behalf of the world for making fuel unnecessarily more expensive along with the government agencies that were complicit in the arrangement? Will a class action to get “Carbon”/CO2 taxes returned to the public when it becomes clear CO2 isn’t the climate control knob or will the rats just scurry into the nearest hole and disappear?
Of course not I couldn’t. Doesn’t fit the agenda.
Let ’em sue. Courts need proof.
Also needs demonstrable damage.
wasn’t it Cromwell that said “the first thing to do is hang all the lawyers” and then didn’t get the job done?
Shakespeare, Henry VIth
Best thing that can happen would be for a climate lawsuits to go to court. The first thing the prosecution will have to do is prove damages. In order to prove damages they would have to prove AGW happend. I think we can rest assured that modeled data will not hold up against satellite and balloon data.
From there any jury would laugh it out of court.
If only that were true.
Way too often juries see a sympathetic plaintiff, a defendant with deep pockets and decide to play Santa.
Yup, MarkW (at 11:50am). OPM.
The issue is that juries won’t come in with a blank slate or be accepting of new data. Even if we could get a jury technical enough to understand the thing being described, you will have one or two who close their ears and ignore anything as it’s said by a “denier”.
Truth
Phase II has begun.
That is BS. A jury of brain surgeons isn’t required to see the lack of model prediction. To see the difference between models and reality data. To understand no warming in over 18 years.
Yes the public is ignorant, but that is because, for whatever reason, they don’t receive the correct information. Or they are not interested enough to find the truth.
Rage against the machine
http://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/tmp/imagecache/galleryformatter_slide/2015/11/28/file-28-5080291352768956.jpg
The beginning of Phase II …
I’m a shareholder in a number of oil and pipeline companies. I would GLADLY take a dividend hit if any one (or all) of these companies went on strike for one month to give the world a little taste of what a carbon-free planet would feel like. But no! They suck up to this crowd of idiots who push this climate change BS. I’m old enough to remember the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo with the line-ups at service stations and the fights that ensued. Let them ride their bicycles and shiver in the cold for a while or shell out for over-priced and unreliable green energy to keep themselves warm.
Plus it’s free if you own forest acreage, and you save the expense of a gym membership.
If your wood burner is exterior, you don’t have the smell or the wood debris and bugs in the house.
I have a tractor with a front end loader to move it and need to have a chainsaw anyway to keep the horse trails open. The only expense is renting the splitter, which is usually a bartering of beer, tools and time with a neighbor.
BB – Me too. But try burning wood in the city and see how fast you get shut down. All those folks without Natural Gas/oil/propane would be in big trouble, no company could shut off the fuel, the law suits would be horrendous. One power company slowed down their coal fired electricity production in Alberta a few years back and made it up with Natural Gas. They got a huge fine for “price fixing” because they produced less base power which drove up prices (more complex than that but KISS). BUT now the NDP Alberta Government is mandating the shut down of coal fired plants. Go figure. Wonder what that will do to prices? A little more costly fuel for the chain saw I guess.
?dl=0
my son lives in london. I saw he had some bits of wood in the outhouse.
“Oh that is kiln dried wood for the fire ”
“What !!”
I too use wood from my forest to heat my house. My better half and I stay fit cutting and splitting wood.
In the winter we gather all the useless wood and have bonfires, red wine and beer, the dog and the cat join us in the bush, wonderful evenings. In Yankee parlance I keep the house at about 85F during the winter and the bathroom dry and warm about 90F. Very easy and very pleasant.
“…you can’t do this stuff legally and the reality is that the barriers are political, not legal,” said Environmental Law Staff Counsel, Andrew Gage
In a way Andrew is correct, Legally anyone can go after whomever they conclude is causing them harm. The barrier is identifying who is causing the alleged harm. Companies don’t sit around happily emitting CO2 for no reason. It is people using energy that has increased CO2 emissions. Legally to stop the CO2, stop the consumers and the companies stop emitting. It is consumers, every man, woman, and child who uses energy that is causing the alleged harm, they in the end are the target of the lawsuits. Taking this circus to it’s conclusion, the remedy has to include a court order restricting the use of energy of every single person on the planet. Go for it.
A carbon tax was a pie in the sky objective.
They always knew they could change the system via class action.
Ya gotta unseat CO2’s status as a bogeyman pollutant if you want the house of cards to collapse.
Surely the plaintiff has to prove his case?
What’s kind of silly about this situation is the energy companies don’t actually produce much CO2. They provide a product. It is the consumers of that product that create the CO2. Hence, it would seem the proper defendant should be consumers. Good luck with that.