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.
So I’m assuming that the people taking legal action don’t use electricity, gas or oil then?
It is that time when greens are emboldened like never before. Suing companies deemed CO2 emitter was the natural next step for the green fanatic movement. And rightly so. These nations went to Paris and crowed like crazed roosters now the chicken have come home to roost. Too many companies went to Paris and sold their souls to the greens, now the proverbial – well you know what just hit the bucket. Yes, it is time for CO2 science, actual science, to enter into the court room, time for actual scientists to be called to the stand under oath and fight it out based on science. Time for greens to be called to the stand and forced under oath to state their garbage. And if what we say is correct – I have no doubt genuine scientist will win the day.
This is a two_edged sword opening the door to suing alarmists for costs to individual’s elconomies when the ship of fools goes down.
At this point however, the best course of action would be for the defendants to shut down the power plants and gas pipelines all over the world and advise they will reopen when the case’s are dropped permanently or settled in their favour. This has to be nipped in the bud and companies better grow elephant cojones unless they would rather burn up all their capital on millions of law suits.
I wish their was a bring – em – on attitude but the fear mongering over the years has made wimps of people large and small. Makes me sick.
When this idiocy virus succumbs we need a never again campaign. A lest we forget annual holiday. Some more oiler plate in constitutions. Close control on NGOS activities as relates to national security and wellbeing of our citizens. Most needed is a real non partisan education for all. It might have to be supported outside school teaching like you find done ethnic groups already.
Parents need to reacquire their proper role in their children’s education. It is ignorance that feeds these ugly transnationally underwritten new world order putches.
Gary Pearse
December 14, 2015 at 11:24 am
“Parents need to reacquire their proper role in their children’s education. It is ignorance that feeds these ugly transnationally underwritten new world order putches.”
There are probably not very many parents that know the truth.
“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?”
No problem, evidence they were unaware of has been found. For example that there has been no global warming for 18 years and 9 months. Furthermore, it appears they have been mislead by corrupt scientists, politicians and lazy journalists.
This is actually good news.
@Buster Brown “I’ve been using firewood for years to keep warm. It’s darn reliable.”
It may be reliable but it sure isn’t sustainable. Wood burns faster than it grows.
My 85 year old dad has been harvesting the same 97 acres for the last 41 years. Seems to have enough firewood. Maybe its because he knows what he’s doing, sustainability-wise?
How long will it last when all of his neighbors find out that the only way they are going to stay warm is by harvesting from that same 97 acres?
Caligula – Yeah – I burn more deadfall in burn piles every year on my place than I cut and split to keep warm over the winter. But I have a lot of trees around the margin of my pastures. Depends totally on how much area you have per person. Look at the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti, treeless on the left, Dominican forested on the right. The result of energy poverty plus poverty in general. The legacy of Poppa Doc and the foreign aid he received. The UN would have the developed countries contribute 100 billion a year to do this? There must be a better way.
?dl=0
Hopefully, one of those neighbors is a Weyerhauser who starts planting trees… . 🙂
Go Big GREEN (Forest Management Industry) LOGGING!
Well, just had to say it! I’m from Washington, “The Evergreen State” — where they know how to keep it that way. And WILL, so long as the environmentalists don’t stop logging/re-planting (just because trees are sacred, like cows and steers in India …. )…. for, then, tree debris will make the forests giant fires-waiting-to-happen… and inevitably they will burn (look up “fire climax forests”) and look pretty bleak for quite awhile…. but, they, too, just like the trees on lower Mt. St. Helens, will come back. ,Isn’t the great engine called “earth” with all its negating feed backs just wonderful?
{Aside: Must have been a mighty smart engineer… . 😉
Oh. Yes, of course. It all just “happened” — all that simultaneous complexity was due to ….. say! How about Fairies (from another planet, of course)?}
As IF our puny little human CO2 puffs could do ANYTHING to change the climate of the ~70% ocean-covered earth. I tell you! AGW is not just mere speculation, it is RIDICULOUS speculation!
#(:))
trees do fall over and die, even oaks, it is unfortunate we do not have so many oaks now or even yews else we could build some ships and some longbows and invade France for a laugh.
@ur momisugly Dave Chappell — agreed. Logging is mainly cost-effective (for an entire nation, I mean, not on a smaller scale where, indeed, if one person owned enough land to re-plant enough trees to perpetually use wood, it is feasible — not a very common scenario!) only for other products, not heating. Thus, I add, GO, NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY!
#(:))
This is a blatant attempt at taking their “climate justice” idea and making it real, via the courts. This is just a trial run for them. Win, and boom, the precedent is set, and the sky’s the limit.
Hi Bruce. Yeah, I’m thinking the same, but I’m also thinking that Paris has already established their precedent. It establishes that the ”offending” countries make financial compensation to the ”victim” countries.
And Environmentalists accuse others of being short sighted. Who pray tell do they figure the lawyers will come for after they drain energy companies? It might not be environmental groups directly or right away but in a world in which you can sue anyone for anything perceived to have harmed you, no matter how removed, you can bet it won’t stop with energy companies.
I’m sure activist judges and politicians will shield them for a while. But given that money is pretty obviously convincing them to look the other way now when it comes to interpreting laws and passing legislation they are just leaving the fox to guard the hen house.
Introduce him to someone in a drought. Somehow, complaining about having too much fresh water seems like complaining that your gold shoes are too tight.
Any company being sued for emitting CO2 should claim for contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, his family and associates for their lifetime output of CO2 through breathing.
“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?”
Excellent point.
Perhaps the lawyers at the those endangered firms will advise the company to stay away from climatology issues.
I’m actually surprised that there have not been class action lawsuits from shareholders suing the boards for wasting money on frivolous eco stuff.
+1
a fine observation
Have known for quite a few years that few if any new conventional power plants would be built in the U.S.
Lawsuits, delays and the cost over-runs are the reasons.
Companies decided to just run their plants as long as they could and then just shut them down without replacement. Then try to buy power from other sources to keep in business.
Costs companies too much money to fight activists.
” a lake that threatens to flood the town”
Sounds like “pre-crime” to me.
Wonder if the leftists who infest the green movement would like the cops to start arresting people for things they might do. No? Didn’t think so…
The only glacial fed lake I can find in the area is Laguna Rajucolta. It appears that once they they dammed the outlet of the lake sometime after 1969 it’s level has risen a good bit.
It’s simple! Walk away from any COP21 Agreement – the option is still available!. Then via respective Parliaments “cancel” all Climate Change Laws and Regulations and all Renewable Energy subsidies, tax breaks, and guaranteed minimum unit power prices. Cancel all such other related Climate treaties. Then re-introduce competitive open free markets in power and energy throughout the developed world and let the market and the law govern. Leave those, including individuals, supposedly suffering from the negative effects of our man-made CO2 driven global warming and climate change in the past, the present and in the future, with the opportunity to seek damages from those parties deemed responsible and in the appropriate court of law. Avoid or ignore actions within suspect jurisdictions! The onus would be on those suing to
1. prove cause and effect,
2. identify and prove entities/individuals who are alleged to be solely responsible,
3. provide evidence of actual loss in both type and valuation
4. etc. etc.
Problem solved, particularly now that the Developing Countries are emitting far, far more CO2 emissions and particulate carbon, sulphates, NOX emissions etc. than Developing Countries. Sit back and if ultimately see necessary, blame others! “Yah, yah, that speck of particulate carbon and that molecule of CO2 you claim I emitted was only emitted yesterday by someone else and elsewhere!”
And what if the glaciers were growing instead? Who would they sue?
A shareholder suit against green NGO’s and management that is giving in to the Green blob, on the basis that the shareholder return has been negatively impacted, would be interesting…
Yes — it — would! Wish that would happen all over the place!
“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.”
If I was the energy giant and this happened, I would cut off all fossil based energy to the farm. I also wouldn’t finish there and cut off any company or person involved in the lawsuit. It wouldn’t take long for them to release how important heating and electricity is for them just to survive a cold winter. They would have to find alternative energy sources, so good luck with that. How are they going to make wind turbines and solar panels with no fossil based energy whatsoever? Sue the companies that make wind turbines and solar panels too, using fossil energy? We seem to be increasingly moving towards a bunch of green brainless hypocrites.
“MarkW December 14, 2015 at 11:54 am
How long will it last when all of his neighbors find out that the only way they are going to stay warm is by harvesting from that same 97 acres?”
Well, sometimes he takes his guns out for target practice. His hearing is going, but I wouldn’t want to bet against his eyes.
Oh, and they wouldn’t be his neighbours, except perhaps for the retired civil servants, teachers and others who would have chosen Northern Ontario to retire to. The “oldtimers” like him are also fairly good at ensuring the wood holds out. And are just as good shots.
Giving in to bullies just encourages bullying. Green bullying will not stop until someone stands up to them and slaps them down. I would love to see green support evaporate. Better still, I’d love to see companies (and individuals) team together and sue green groups and green agencies for lying, for data manipulation and for obtaining money under false pretenses. For causing actual harm too.
Green bullying has grown too big. It will take some mighty cooperation and a world-wide effort to bring it to its knees, but the alternative is unthinkable.
What gets me is that these greenie idiots take great pleasure in the destruction they cause, they’ll be laughing all the way – right up until the mob reaches their door. And if it’s not an avenging mob, it’ll be a green mob there to strip away their computers and cars and fancy goods, or even to round them up as part of the 90% “surplus” humans.
I bet they don’t think it could happen to them.
They see the destruction to others and laugh about it. They never think it might land on their doorstep or that the lights might go out at their place. Sooner or later, though, a mob of some description will come for them and they’ll wonder what the heck happened. Or blame somebody else. Naturally. It’s always someone else’s fault when you’re green.
Those companies supporting the green effort had better wake up, but I suspect they are fully aware of the nightmare facing them.
Good luck suing China for contaminating the Arctic with black soot.
Get it moved somewhere in between the parties such as Washington DC and call Michael Mann as an expert witness.
Those Corporate Giants who attempt to appease the giant Green Blob, deserve all that they receive from the lawyers. These Corporates are trying to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds at the same time. There will come a time when the Green Blob turns against the Warmistas themselves and it will not be pretty.
I am beginning to doubt I belong to this species.
I note the same lake also breached in 1941 flooding Huaraz and killing many.
http://www.highmountains.org/blog/inundation-modeling-potential-glacial-lake-outburst-flood-huaraz-peru
“1941 un aluvión impacta Huaraz.” Slide 7. (scroll down and click on “Click to Read” (report))
+1 Great evidence, MJB!
Thanks for finding an exact location and facts about the situation. Looks as though if it has happened before, at a time when CO2 was not supposed to be a factor in climate, the farmer would have a hard time proving that it is CO2 that would cause it to happen again.
Hopefully, President Cruz will appoint Anthony Watts as Science Adviser in 2017 and put this nightmare to bed !!
A good skeptic would have a plan in case Ms Clinton gets elected.
Here’s a playful little Oddsmaker site on the election
http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures
Cruz is OK isn’t he ? I’m not american but if I was I would vote for him.
Senator Ted Cruz is GREAT!
And so is Ben Carson — and he can, I think, expand the base by bringing more black votes in — that sounds like a racist thing to say, but, for some reason, black people tend to vote for a black person and DID this in 2008 and 2012, just because Obama was black. Interviews of black voters reveal this over and over (and a lot of non-blacks also voted for Obama because he was black; “It’s time,” they would say, nodding soberly, completely ignoring his lack of qualification for the office and his extreme policies). So, just being practical: I think Ben Carson has the best chance to win. Ted Cruz would be the NEXT great president (win in 2024 and 2028!).
Trump has panache, but he is a RINO (for, e.g., government takings of private property when the “public use” is merely economic, see, e.g., the Kelo decision). And he is misogynistic (“bleeding from somewhere”) and uses poor judgment in the language he uses to talk about various groups, e.g., Latinos.
The Black loyalty vote for POTUS as the “first” black man at one time was also considered as similar in concept as the “first” female for Hillary. She once has a commanding 65 to 70% of la femmes, but that has eroded to under 50% in recent polls. This fact makes her run for pres a race.
THE GOP would do well to chose a candidate that preys on the flank that Hillary has exposed and chose a candidate that women like.
::: from the peanut gallery :::
Think “commander in chief” – I suspect that Rubio, Cruz and Bush would be the ones to be best on making foreign policy happen and regain some of the losses during the Story of O. Ben’s nice, a great man, but a bit at sea in the muddied waters of standing USA ground at home and abroad. Mind you, he’d be great buddies with our Canadian PM who has nice hair and the girls seem to like his bod.
What about a Cruz/Carson ticket? Of course this is way of topic but given the recent Senate hearings, there is certainly a hope that Cruz would be a choice. But then I am from north of the border and we certainly haven’t made very good choices as a country lately though the folks where I live didn’t vote for the governments in power. The rural vote and flyover states/provinces have less and less impact except as suppliers of food, water, and oil …
I have an American friend who thinks we divided up the North American continent poorly. He figures there should be one country east of the Mississippi from the Gulf to Hudson’s Bay, another country consisting of BC, Washington, Oregon and California. The third country would consist of the high plains states and provinces with access to tidewater at Houston. North south travel is more natural than east west. Even the buffalo and the birds had figured that out. I am starting to think he may be right.
United Nations has created a complete mess!
And this by an organization which was put up
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”
United Nations was supposed to solve international problems of a cultural character – not to become one!