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.
. .If all the Greenies REALLY wanted to save the planet, they would all stop breathing…immediately !!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/24/uk-met-fastest-decline-solar-activity-last-ice-age/#comment-1972538
PROPOSAL – SUE THE WARMISTS IN THE USA UNDER CIVIL RICO
I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..
Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.
We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..
The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.
If serious funders are interested, please contact me through http://www.OilsandsExpert.com
Regards, Allan MacRae
Calgary
knutesea commented: “….The beginning of Phase II …”
So far AGW has been finger pointing, shaming, and scare mongering. Nobody really cares but some grandstanding politicians and a very small minority of people that are rabid environmentalists. How many countries capable of contributing do you think will willfully give up money for distribution by an appointed organization like the UN? Well, the answer so far is few. And of those few nothing has changed hands that I’m aware of. How much do you think Congress will approve for climate reparations? Getting people to save the world is one thing, getting them to pay for it as an act of atonement is another. I believe this is when people will start taking notice and I don’t care where one is in the US political spectrum the push back will overwhelm the Green Blob. Phase I was easy because people are ambivalent about what doesn’t directly affect them but Phase II ….writing the checks if I catch your drift…. will be a whole different story. My glass is half full on this aspect of AGW.
Reading the tea leaves, it looks like the multinational corporations are the weak link in the shakedown.
They’re the most likely to give a little to get “peace”, if past evidence is worth anything.
As long at they meet their ROR for shareholders, life will hum along for them.
I see them as the shopfront owners who have to pay the green mafia.
The elected reps will bow to the green mafia because the silent majority thinks it’s “nice” that the green mafia wants a “clean” neighborhood. That’s the microcosm of the strategy that works for most politicos.
It works as long as wealth continues to grow in the community.
Stops working when the money runs out.
I’ve been trying to simplify what I see.
Feel free to pummel my opinion.
knutesea commented: “… it looks like the multinational corporations are the weak link in the shakedown.
They’re the most likely to give a little to get “peace”…”
I would say you are correct except money is not their ultimate goal and getting it from private funds would be detrimental to their cause. It would only reinforce Capitalism as the successful economic force. They want/need Western economies to die so they can be the savior and the only way for that to happen is to undermine industry. Transferring money without guaranteed market won’t work. Britain now has little metal smelting and heavy industry to follow. That’s their playbook for the West. The Environmentalists don’t care what the plan is as long as they win their battle of saving the world for…..well, the world. Taxing multinational corporations to get $100B+/year would be extremely risky for the UN. Even criminal activity has its’ codes and there’s nothing like a crook scorned. I don’t believe another country will be as stupid as the UK and allow their economy to be decimated while everyone else stands by and watches. Meanwhile, no global temperature rise in almost 19 years and they’re still playing AGW like a fiddle.
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.
Sounds to me like the old boy doesn’t give a dam.
Read the late and much missed Michael Crichton’s classic “State of Fear” to find out why suing wealthy organisations that can afford good legal representation might just be a bad idea for the CAGW business in general.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0007181604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450142038&sr=1-1&keywords=state+of+fear+michael+crichton
If Crichton’s understanding of the matter is correct, then – BRING IT ON!
See how the Great State of Massachusetts and several other miscreant States and other entities brought suit against the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) so as to force it to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The EPA had chosen not to do this, arguing that the Clean Air Act gave it discretion in deciding whether it should regulate a given substance.
In 2007 the Supreme Court, hearing the case, ruled in favor of Mass. et al., with C.J. Roberts and J. Scalia writing dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The EPA was thus ordered to reconsider its understanding that it therefore had discretion as to whether to regulate CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses”.’ Quoting Wikipedia,
My humble apologies to the EPA: I had thought it was the villain of this particular piece. Oh well, remember all those times when it should have been locked in the deepest dungeon below the floor of the foulest sea, with no access to Green of any sort (especially long green, of course) and allowed no contact with any living entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency
Even though in this case there’s a reversal of the expected roles, we are all still the victims, and the case is certainly precedent for deciding that prosecutions of and judgments against even governmental agencies for failing to consider CO2 a “pollutant” are legitimate. If governmental agencies — here, one of the worst in terms of being an out-of-control bullying leg-breaker, just my opinion of course — are to be controlled for Sins against the Planet, how much more so businesses and private citizens!
That suit was a set up between msss and epa
Julie,
Thank you for taking the time to prepare such a thoughtful comment. That was good background information for us to be aware of.
Take heart! In the U.S., non-governmental entities and private individuals (of which a corporation is, technically, one) are much less likely to be controlled in the manner the EPA was. At issue there was the EPA’s highly specific mandate under an act of Congress. Private persons have no such mandate governing their behavior. The EPA had a legally-imposed duty (wrongly interpreted by the 5-4 SCOTUS majority) v. a v. “pollutants.” Thus, there was a legal basis (however unwarranted) for the lawsuit.
There is no legal duty of care making the German organization liable for damages to the plaintiff for the allegedly CO2-caused potential flooding damages (for which, injunctive relief might be granted, even though there is no true standing yet at ALL, for there has been, as of yet, no injury to that plaintiff at all). AGW has no evidence for it. Further, there is no phony-baloney law on the books declaring as a matter of law that the German org. is liable for CO2 emissions. If such a phony-baloney law WERE passed: 1) it is ex post facto; 2) if the Peruvians say “who cares about ex post facto, we command you!!”, then, the whole charade is just like any tinpot dictatorship where a company gets the shaft, essentially, just a more subtle version of nationalizing such as Chavez did to U.S. Corps. in Venezuela (and Russia has done to the Yukos (sp?) CEO in prison for failure to pay grossly exhorbitant taxes — the Russians basically just stole the guy’s company — not many U.S. firms do business in Russia…).
So! (and Julie, please know that this comment is not so much aimed at you, as just at general readership — not trying to educate you as if you needed special help!)
Lesson: Don’t do business in countries where the legal system goes not guarantee even basic liberties. China is a BIG risk…. as long as it benefits them, they will cooperate with you… but, when you need (as a business entity) to seek recourse in the courts for breach of contract or the like there…. GOOD LUCK. Even with liberals making stupid decisions (as they did in Mass. v. EPA), the U.S. (and other nations with similar legal protections, such as many European nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada — go Canada! (you guys need to get mentioned around this place more often!! 🙂 ) is a pretty wonderful place: you can do business here and pretty much what you expect will happen (legal-wise) happens (generally speaking — yes, I realize there are many travesties of justice, but when you weigh those in view of how MANY contracts and agreements and ventures are successfully executed, it really is wonderful (given the state of legal affairs in much of the world)).
Again, Julie, GREAT COMMENT, sorry to have used a reply to you to say so much that was not aimed at you personally.
We need more commenters like you — our super-researcher, Gail Combs, seems to have little time for WUWT now … and we miss her.
Your ally for TRUTH and FREEDOM,
Janice
If agw were true , would,t everyone who uses fossil fuels be guilty?
Any company being sued should just admit their guilt and then say ” Now figure out what percentage of the warming was caused by the little bit of CO2 that we emit, and we will gladly pay for that”.
Dear Eric Worrall,
Thank you, so much, for doing so much to make WUWT a high-value science (and political) information site!
Say, I see that you are still commenting (as of half an hour ago, I mean!) on this thread! Yea! I am, thus, hopeful that you will read THIS comment.
I posted 3 fun (to me, anyway) videos I thought your little girl might enjoy here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/09/wednesday-wit-environ-mental/#comment-2092415
Posting this here, for I think I missed you over there… .
Thanks again — and thank your little girl for all the time she has given up with her daddy so he can make WUWT a wonderful place to go.
Gratefully,
Janice
Thanks Janice. My little helper sometimes pushes the lid of my laptop closed and says “daddy time!” 🙂
Well — good — for — her (and you, too). Thanks for the reply!
#(:))
One day she will push the lid closed and say “Hammer time!”…
UNICEF is helping promote the scam:
Trick or Treat for UNICEF…
Look at the tricks they are now up to:
What utter bull$hit!!
To think I used to collect money for these crooks at Halloween. Sad.
Trick or Treat for UNICEF…
Look at the tricks they are now up to:
https://twitter.com/MoanerLeesa/status/676625820077662208
What utter bull!!
To think I used to collect money for these crooks at Halloween. Sad.
So equally the people who were flooded in Cumbria should be able to sue the wind turbine companies over the failure to plant trees so heavy rain goes straight into the rivers. There is proof that the wind companies oppose tree planting wherever there are turbines.
RWE should plea for an offset against Peru’s llama methane emissions. Fair is fair.
As usual, all parties agree that the cause of warming is greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide in the air. I am going to suggest that any lawsuit based upon this is based on a pseudo-scientific lie and must be dismissed. That is because science says that the greenhouse effect is impossible and observations of nature prove it.
First, the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not even the most abundant one, Water vapor is. Only the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT can handle both gases at ther same time. We don’t need such advanced science for the present.
The myth of the greenhouse effect goes back to 1896 when Svante Arrhenius observed that carbon dioxide in his laboratory absorbed infrared radiation and thereby became warm. He jumped to the conclusion that this must also happen in the atmosphere and the Arrhenius greenhouse theory was born. IPCC still uses it and all those law suits require it.
But now look at the history of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Keeling curve and its extension by ice cores shows no increase of CO2 in numerous situations involving observed warming events. An example is a thirty year period of warming that started in 1910 and stopped in 1940. Laws of physics demand that in order to start a greenhouse warming from scratch like that you must simultaneously add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
This did not happen in 1910 as the Keeling curve tells us, a fact very carefully hidden by the IPCC. Furthermore, it is quite impossible to stop greenhouse warming suddenly without removing carbon dioxide from the air, a feat not yet accomplished by our so-called “climate” scientists. Fact is that for unknown reasons warming did stop quite suddenly at the beginning of 1940. What followed was a steep drop of temperature, down to the WWII cool period that lasted through the war.
Recovery from this cold wave began about 1950, but global temperature did mot reach the peak 1940 level again until about 1980. That point was then followed by a hiatus. This chain of events takes carbon dioxide completely out of the warming business from 1910 to 1950, a good forty years. As to the first ten years of the century, that was another cooling period which makes for a total of fifty years of no-warming so far. And that makes half of the twentieth century completely greenhouse free: no carbon dioxide greenhouse warming for half a century.
Any shady lawyer who wants to use greenhouse warming as an argument in a lawsuit is well advised to forget it, and drop any lawsuits about global warming.