Making America Great Again? USA leads the way in frivolous climate lawsuits
From the “next, let’s sue because the weather was bad for my picnic today” department comes this study that shows just how crazy it’s become. I mean really, what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? I would not be surprised if we see something like that this year. The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed. Stable climate is nothing more than a fable. And, just where in the US Constitution does is say we have a right to stable weather or climate? Nowhere.
Via Columbia University Earth Institute: A new global study has found that the number of lawsuits involving climate change has tripled since 2014, with the United States leading the way. Researchers identified 654 U.S. lawsuits—three times more than the rest of the world combined. Many of the suits, which are usually filed by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, seek to hold governments accountable for existing climate-related legal commitments. The study was done by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Around 177 countries recognize the right of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, and courts are increasingly being asked to define the implications of this right in relation to climate change.
“Judicial decisions around the world show that many courts have the authority, and the willingness, to hold governments to account for climate change,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Burger said that in the United States, litigation has been “absolutely essential” to advancing solutions to climate change, from the first, successful, lawsuit demanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions, to a recent lawsuit claiming that citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system. “Similar litigation all over the world will continue to push governments and corporations to address the most pressing environmental challenge of our times,” he said.
“The science can stand up in a court of law, and governments need to make sure their responses to the problem do too,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. As litigation has grown, it has addressed a widening scope of activities, ranging from coastal development and infrastructure planning to resource extraction. The scope of individual suits is also growing in ambition, says the report.
Some suits outside the United States have already had results. Among other things, the report describes how, in September 2015, a Pakistani lawyer’s case against the government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 resulted in the government designating action points within several ministries, and the creation of a commission to monitor progress.
The report predicts that more litigation will originate in developing countries, where people are expected to suffer many of the worst effects of shifting climate. The report also predicts more human-rights cases filed by “climate refugees,” coming as a direct result of climate-driven migration, resettlement and disaster recovery. By 2050 climate change could, according to some estimates, displace up to 1 billion people. That number could soar higher later in the century if global warming is not kept under 2 degrees Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels, say some.
International organizations including the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees have already acknowledged the need to address the plights of people displaced by changing climate. But there is yet no international agreement on the rights of such displaced persons, nor on the obligations of countries to respect them.
Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors; laws and policies must be part of any strategy. They say that because of the Paris Agreement, plaintiffs can now argue in some jurisdictions that their governments’ political statements must be backed up by concrete measures to mitigate climate change.
The paper: The Status of Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review: columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Burger-Gundlach-2017-05-UN-Envt-CC-Litigation.pdf
h/t to Marc Morano
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The US “leads” primarily because of the ‘American Rule’ that allows plaintiffs to play the Litigation Lottery for nearly nothing. Every other sane judicial environment has a credible loser-pays system of one sort or another to disincent frivolous lawsuits.
It exists, but many (if not most) judges do not enforce it. I know a few government lawyers who would dearly love to hand each of the sue-and-settle NGOs some very large invoices.
Anthony,
“The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”
The charge of “egotistical” there at the end seems . . presumptuous (and in a sense egotistical itself, in that it places the modern thinker’s (speaker’s) knowledge and understanding of the matter in a position of perceptive obviousness it simply does not deserve . . Please provide some logical reason emotionally balanced people in the distant paste would have had, to think the universe did not revolve around the Earth, if you can think of any, I can’t . .) to me.
This looks to me like residue of just the sort of propaganda (I believe) has been put forth by people intent on enthroning Siants gods over us no good, ignorant little monkeys, in the place of the (presumably) foolish; Rule by consent of the governed, model, handed down to us by our no good, ignorant little monkey Founders ; )
Please be careful not to help the real perps hide behind a human shield . .
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places
I am concerned that some judge (probably in the 9th Circuit) will find such a right in the penumbra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
Nope. You evidently never went to law school. The ‘penumbra’ of the Constitution infers. For example. The penumbra of the second Amendment allows chamb red weapons, not just 1789 mussle loaders. It allows semi auto chambered weapons. It does not allow you to own and operate an M60 0.50 cal heavy machine gun without special permissions.
Greyscale law is tough stuff. Get used to it.
Sure, clams tend to be happier ; )
What did the mussel say to the snail?
“I think I’m bi.”
What about a minigun? Can I own a minigun? cause I reeeeally want a minigun.
‘Infers’ is not a verb anymore? Wow, education standards change quickly.
“what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? ”
Hush! Don’t give ’em any (more) stupid ideas.
Stop transporting food to the big cities. Zombies don’t need it.
For the record.
It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
(Appropriate I feel, Evan, though I suggest; Climalot ; )
Based upon the paleoclimate record and upon work that has been done on climate models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. To date Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change global climate. Even if governmnet could somehow cause the climate to stop changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the present climate. In the past there has been no known global climate that has eliminated extreme weather events. So the party at fault here is Mother Nature and that is the party that should be named in climate legal actions. Lots of luck in collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.
If the burning of fossil fuels is some how at fault then those responsible are those that have been making use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. It is the consumers whose money keeps the fossil fuel companies in business that actually caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere that are the responsible parties for increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.
In terms of total greenhouse gases entering the armopshere, it is the Earth’s oceans that are to blame and hence it is the Earth’s oceans that should be held accuntable. It will be very difficult to collect on a judgment against the Earth’s oceans.
Given the recent court determinations against Trump regarding the hiatus on Immigration from certain nations, it is obvious that many of those on the bench have no obligation to follow the law but can imagine anything to justify their ruling. The recent rulings have used statements by people other than Trump to justify their decision. The 9 th circuit is overturned over 50% of the time when challenged. Obama and Clinton have packed the courts with people who are zealots and have no intention of following the law or the Constitution they are of the same ilk as those who have run the EPA, DOE, IRS, etc..
Similarly they will unilaterally knock down any attempt to return government climate change policy to something that makes sense and based on facts and the Law.
Given this, it might be wise to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate and have them turn it down.
Exactly
+20
“Given the recent court determinations against Trump regarding the hiatus on Immigration from certain nations, it is obvious that many of those on the bench have no obligation to follow the law but can imagine anything to justify their ruling.”
Let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t see it the same way. If they do, then we are *really* in trouble. No controlling authority. The U.S. Constitution would be worthless looked at from that perspective.
I think there should be a serious effort to remove all the Justices in the Fourth District who voted to uphold this ruling. They obviously have a very skewed view of the U.S. Constitution. They’re making things up.
It’s unbelievable that they are basing their decsions on what they think was and is in Trump’s mind rather than what is actually written on the EO sitting in front of them. They apparently believe themselves to be mindreaders. They have set themselves up to overrule the U.S. Constitution by totally misreading the law. The law is plain and simple: The president has the authority to stop anyone from coming into the U.S. for ANY reason he thinks necessary. What Trump personally thinks about a particular group is irrelevant.
I certainly wouldn’t want one of these judges deciding a case I was involved in. They are completely out to lunch. No clue. Really disheatening. Disheartenig to see just how far the Liberal agenda has progressed in U.S. courts.
On a happier note, Trump gets to appoint the next 100 or so Federal judges. Maybe many more if Trump gets reelected and then Pence gets eight years. We need something like that to turn this situation in the courts around.
TA, we have 4 Judges on the Supreme court that do think “that way” and they vote “that” way on every important issue. One of them has stated our system is not the best and praise a constitution from a South American Country. Fortunately she sleeps at important events and may soon be replaced by Trump.
If Hillary were elected we would have a majority on the Supreme court that do not respect the law or the Constitution but will vote for the progressive agenda.
Let’s hope Gorsuch makes the difference.
From New Zealand comes ” The student suing the NZ Government” also headlined as ” Student takes Government to Court” by Jamie Morton NZ Herald Science Reporter (The New Zealand Herald Thursday May 25, 2017)-
“Former Prime Minister John Key once described it as ” a joke”- but now a Hamilton student’s climate change law suit against the government is about to get an airing.
In a case thought to be the first of its kind(!) Sarah Thomson has taken Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett to court over what the 26-year-old claims is a lack of action over the issue.
Bennett says she’s comfortable that New Zealand’s target, pledged as part of the Paris Agreement ratified last year, is fair and ambitious.
Thomson filed papers with the High Court before the UN Conference in Paris in 2015, in an unusual suit that Key dismissed as a joke, pointing out that climate targets by the US and Australia aimed lower.
But the law student has remained serious about the action, and was recently notified the case is to be heard in Wellington next month…….”
To be continued…..
One comment: Apart from Justice Burton in the U.K. High Court, has any judge anywhere given a ruling contesting or even slightly querying CAGW?
It will take a brave judicial officer to do so.
Is there witness protection for judges?
I am sure it will pass just like the “political science student” who tried to sue the NZ gubmint because…get this…the seats at the “Beehive” (Parliament House in Wellington) were not able to handle her ample “frame”. Kid you not!
Ambulance chasing is too much work. Spinning tales with fuzzy climate science is better since there is no solid ground to work around with courtroom schemes and Clinton-style win-the-day tactics.
Just another opportunity to ram home the faux news climate meme…
It isn’t even meant to be taken seriously, it’s just to put ‘man made climate change’ in your face one more time.
All your agendas are belong to us….
Look, we could sue the global warmists for making the planet too cold with their various schemes! That is the plus side of all this, no? 🙂
“…Sabin Center for Climate Change Law…”
How can this be real?
This sounds like a good strategy , when the climate funds dry up because governments realise they have better things to do with their money lets sue them for it. Either way it’s meant to end up in the same pockets
Borrowing a phrase from Mark Steyn (on a completely different topic and I hope I don’t cause a derailment): ‘what is their happy ending here?’.
Do they seriously believe that the energy requirements of 7 going on 11 billion people can be satisfied by windmills and solar panels?
The mere mention of nuclear usually brings the same crowd out in protest.
I’m under the weather. Where’s my money?
It’s all a bit above me….
As a lawyer who has litigated for close to 30 years, I would say this strategy will likely succeed. Judges talk a lot about deciding based on the law. But the truth is they decide basec on a desire to attract attention to themselves. The climate crowd will cultivate the forum very carefully, and the forum will respond predictably. God help us.
Governments have a constitutional obligation to protect and defend our inalienable rights to: life, freedom from government oppression and our private/intellectual property, howerver, no individual or government has the right to initiate force against others in the execution of CO2 sequestration policies for which no net CO2 damages or causation have been established..
To the contrary, the increase in CO2 levels since 1750 has been net-positive with: higher crop yields, massive increases in global greening, extended growing seasons from 0.3C of CO2 forcing, less frost damage, increase in arable land in Northern lattidudes, a slight increase in precipitation, increased drought resistance in plants, more phytoplankton for healthier oceans, shrinking deserts, etc.
Moreover, the additional 0.3C of CO2 forcing between now and 2100 (at current CO2 emission growth rates) will help ameliorate some of the detrimental global cooling effects from the coming Grand Solar Minimum…
To sue for damages, a plaintiff must prove that both net damages and causation have occurred, which is not possible.
Just a thought…
Doors locked (doors locked)
Blinds pulled (blinds pulled)
Lights low (lights low)
Flames high (flames high)
Demand a Star Trek weathernet. I’m sure the government has created one and is just hiding them to punish us for not believing in climate change and income redistribution. Make them roll one out and fix all our nasty weather problems.
When I was about the same age as the protesters in the photo, the big thing was to protest the use of oil because we were running out. The protesters advocated for every possible alternative, without regard to viability, except nuclear because nuclear was bad.
Now the big thing is to protest oil because we have too much. The protesters advocate for every possible alternative, without regard to viability, except nuclear because nuclear is bad.
Fascinating.
Litigation is not going to effect climate change nor is spending trillions of dollars on green scams.
The cult of CAGW might as well propose that we all hold our breaths to stop climate change.
The cult of CAGW have the possibility of being comically, surreally incorrect, concerning their future temperature prediction.
The following is a graph that shows how temperatures have changed on the Greenland Ice sheet in the last 100,000 years. The warm period (the current interglacial period) is called the Holocene Period, which is roughly the last 11,000 years.
Interglacial periods last roughly 10,000 years and have all ended abruptly.
The cyclic warming and cooling events all (small, medium, and super large temperature change events) have a periodicity of 1470 years plus or minus a beat frequency of 500 years.
As internal earth climate forcing events are ‘chaotic’ the fact that earth’s climate is changing periodically and the period remains the same in both the interglacial phase and glacial phase, supports the assertion that there is a massive external forcing function (it’s the sun) that is forcing the earth’s climate.
http://www.igbp.net/images/18.1b8ae20512db692f2a680009486/1376383186497/NL74-holocene_graph_1000px.gif
The following is how temperatures have changed on the Antarctic Ice sheet for the last 420,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
Thank you William for some interesting plots.
“The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”
Just a note on this comment… With Redshift showing everything moving away from us, there are TWO possibilities, one of which was discarded solely (AFAIK) because Physicists don’t like ‘special’ positions.
One is that everything IS moving away from everything else but the other is that everything is moving away from Earth/Solar System.
As near as I can tell there is zero evidence to discard the second choice other than prejudice against Earth being special. 😀
One is that everything IS moving away from everything else but the other is that everything is moving away from Earth/Solar System.
Both can be true. In an expanding universe, everything is moving away from everything else, and from the perspective of any position (such as the Earth/Solar System) everything is moving away from it. Nothing special about it.
Can I sue myself since I used fossil fuels to keep warm this winter and there was hail damage this spring?
Sure, but it might depend on your connections in the courts and some friendly media groups.
Don’t worry, it’s not only the US that hasn’t reached peak legal stupid yet. For example: “Hindu monkey god is issued a summons by Indian court after a roadside temple is built in his honour on government land”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3453062/Hindu-monkey-god-issued-summons-Indian-court-roadside-temple-built-honour-government-land.html