More of this “climate justice” rubbish, now “legitimized” by a publication in a leading science journal
From the Hockey Schtick:
The journal Nature suggests billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate
This just in: the June 2011 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change entertains the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.
The apparently frustrated journal laments that “only if a case came to be judged on its merits [pity the thought], would the ‘science’ of climate change be called upon to help make the case: even then, there are difficulties.”
Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?
Story at the Hockey Schtick
h/t to reader “kwik”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Apart from the complete impractical idiocy of such a suggestion, it is absolutely bizarre that a professional journal can write an article forgetting that the key step that would have to be taken would be to get such personal emissions limits written into law.
Thank god we live in a democracy. Which is why the comments about the Bolsheviks and Brown shorts are indeed worrying. This is the only way lunacy can come to fruition. We should never forget our history.
Adalberto says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:01 am
This is a must see for all here.
Pretty Funny! Well expressed.
the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.
Other peoples’ carbon dioxide footprints are the only thing allowing this plague of babbling parasites to even exist. And for whatever little part I’ve contributed towards producing the horribly malforming niche responsible for creating and supporting their malignant natures, my sincere apologies. [btw, Dr. Frankenstein, eat your heart out!]
face/palm
I have only two words to say to these authoritarian morons and one of those words is off. The other word can also be, and often is, used used as an epithet and it describes the author of this latest piece of eco-wibble perfectly.
phlogiston says:
June 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
“I have no doubt that there are dinner-party groups where an AGW military coup is being seriously considered. Who took Lenin’s bolscheviks seriously until very quickly it became far too late, or Hitler’s brown-shirts?”
With regard to Lenin, the German Reich did – the Bolsheviks were financed and helped by the Germans to bring down Russia. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus
but remember that the wikipedia is mostly on the party line (also called NPOV).
Maybe today’s green activists are controlled by China to bring down the West.
@ur momisugly Louis Hooffstetter
“The journal Nature has NEVER been a leading science journal. Nature Climate Change demonstrates this even more clearly.”
Do you think that history began yesterday? Nature has been published since 1869 and for most of the time since then has been the world’s leading science journal. See the link below.
http://www.nature.com/nature/history/
Some people might argue that Science (the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) has been the world’s top scientific journal for the past few decades but there is not a great deal to choose between them. They are pretty much on a par and deciding between them is largely a matter of opinion.
Unfortunately the editors of Nature have in recent years tended to adopt an uncritical attitude to the theory of anthropogenic global warming and if they persist in that policy they will damage the journal’s reputation. However anyone who claims that Nature has NEVER been a leading science journal is obviously completely ignorant of the facts and makes people who adopt a sceptical attitude to AGW look like complete idiots.
I have read, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following calculation:
“The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)
A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.”
If that is correct, we can further calcukate that 1kg CO2 exhalation per day makes about 360kg per year, so it will take about 7.5 years from breathing alone for the average human to reach a total of 2.7 tonnes. So according to the German Advisory Council on Global Change, we are already all well over the limit just on account of breathing and we should all be suing each other for damages. Should make the lawyers happy anyway.
This could certainly set some interesting precedents. For example, some or all of the members of the jury would also be defendants !!
Here are a few people that:
Some of them are eco-hypocritical global Warmists such as James 3 villas Cameron, Al 2 villas Gore, John 5 jets Travolta, and more Hollywood eco-hypocrites. I particularly want to draw your attention to the angry warmist James Cameron. Did I mention Prince Charles or George Monbiot? The list could go on……………..;O)
I want to see the private carbon footprints of all the employees at Nature. I also want to see the carbon footprint of Nature Magazine as a whole. How much deforestation has Nature (paper mag) caused since its inception?
Hypocrites!
I followed the discussion of the recent quake-aftermath on the zerohedge site. One of the commenters stated that the west coast of Japan would have been a safer location, as it had not historically been subjected to the large tsunamis that have struck the east coast. (I’m not sure, but he may also have said that the severity of the quakes there is somewhat less.) This would have required longer transmission lines to the large urban locations that used most of the electricity, which was presumably why it wasn’t done.
Another commenter said that a coastal location would not have been so bad if it had been set back a bit from the water’s edge, at a higher elevation. This would have meant more expense in pumping the water back and forth, which presumably was why it wasn’t done.
Coldish says:
June 11, 2011 at 2:47 am
I have read, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following calculation:….”Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2″
Not finding any calculation of the world’s average CO2/person/day output and also struggling around for awhile, then making some big but hopefully “ballpark” assumptions about ave. body size from infant to adult, state of heath including fevers, and thus ave. respiratory [= ventilation = CO2 exhalation] rate and volume per person, I got the same result, 1kg.CO2/person/day. [Although intense exercise can generate around 454 gm. CO2/hour, so all you exercise addicts beware!]
Later someone here reported a gov’t source showing 900 gm./day/average person, but the links didn’t lead to the method. Anyway, at least it’s a “consensus”!
[But your source’s 13000 breaths per day at least appears to be too low by about 1/2 : at, say, adjusted for some activity beyond resting rate, 20 breaths[exhalations]/min x 1440 min./day = 28800 exhalations/day, each one removing relatively large amounts of CO2 net .]
If people can be convinced to surrender a significant proportion of their earnings in order to pay for the slaughter of children in Iraqistan for ‘world security’ then I don’t see why they can’t be sued for alleged crimes against the sky.
Can someone show why one is any less preposterous than the other?
That’s why I always think we should be careful when we think ‘that’ll never happen – it’s just too crazy’.
We already live in a world of talking lamp posts, facial recognition software and perpetual illegal wars and most people don’t seem to care (or have even noticed).
I haven’t driven anything with a motor since December 8, 1999. I do live too modern in some ways, but switching to bicycling every day took a big ol’ chunk out of my carbon footprint.
MichaelEdits,
Thanx for contributing to global starvation. The planet already has too many poor folks, right?
From Roger Knights on June 11, 2011 at 5:09 am:
However the west coast has historically been subjected to Chinese military aggression. Keeping them far away from Chinese artillery and missiles was an important military consideration when the siting was chosen for those old plants, likely still is important. Which seemed more likely, a monster super-tsunami or an attack from Communist China? Now that the once-a-century tsunami has hit, and given the recent Chinese military advances (aircraft carriers and stealth fighter jets, etc), which currently seems more likely?
Billions could be sued…….
Such drivel. Everyday for years now I think I have read the most stupid thing about climate change ever – and almost every day I realise I haven’t.
Just one thought – if anyone or any organisation or whatever sues “billions” of people just by the law of averages quite a lot of them will just come and kill you…….just saying.
Have they measured how much CO2 they themselves emit from that weed they’re smoking?
J.
So the eco-freaks are finally getting bold enough to start to put into print what they really want. Their goal is to find a way to force humanity to commit mass suicide leaving perhaps 10% of the current population. That’s what they think is required to “save the planet.”
Is there any liablity for polititians who make dumb decissions that cost the community money?
How about millions, no lets say Billions of dollars on a “wrong” decission?
Any liability there ? Class action anybody ?
Well, we are all sue happy. Everybody wants to sue against CO2. I say we sue FOR CO2, All the rich CO2 producing individuals sue all the non CO2 producers for not paying for their free CO2, which has the KNOWN benefit of increasing food production. Fair is fair, and we need to be compensated for our generosity.
Then we can all have a drink, when we are done thinking of things to drink for, we can start finding things to drink against. AWGM (a world gone mad)
Ah, this is SO funny! My brother lawyers are ALWAYS looking for something to do! This is welfare for lawyers, friends. Nothing more.
You can sue for anything. That said more people can be sued for emitting below the “average” carbon footprint. In order to sue successfully damages have to be demonstrated. I believe it’s easier to demonstrate that more CO2 in the atmosphere fosters larger agricultural yields and extends growing seasons in higher latitudes where length of growing season is of great concern. Thus those people with a larger than average carbon footprint are making the world a better place moreso than those with a smaller footprint.
@roger Knights:
Another commenter said that a coastal location would not have been so bad if it had been set back a bit from the water’s edge, at a higher elevation. This would have meant more expense in pumping the water back and forth, which presumably was why it wasn’t done.
Yeah, except some egghead scientist using a whamodyne computer model said you only had to build for an x meter tsunami.
good post