Guest essay by Eric Worrall
For years many fossil fuel companies seemed content to stay quiet in the face of public vilification, but with big lawsuits looming, this strategy of avoiding public climate controversy is looking increasingly precarious.
Four climate change lawsuits to watch in 2018
Did you know it’s possible to take legal action to fight global warming? Ever more citizens are doing just that. Here are four landmark climate change lawsuits with significant decisions pending in 2018.
…
According to a survey by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia Law School, climate change lawsuits are on the increase — with nearly 900 cases in 24 countries as of March last year — and courts will play a greater role to in the fight against global warming over the year to come.
…
Citizens vs. the government of the Netherlands
It started with a precedent-setting climate lawsuit in the summer of 2015, when 900 Dutch citizens, represented by the Urgenda Foundation, took their government to court to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
This was the first time a group of citizens sued their own government over climate change action — and won.
The lawsuit resulted in a Dutch court ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide by at least 25 percent by the year of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), forcing it to take more measures against climate change.
,,,
Youth vs. the government of the United States
Another lawsuit inspired by the Dutch court case was started by a group of American youths, who are suing the US government for failing to curb climate change.
The 21 plaintiffs, who are between 10 and 21 years old, and come from all over the US, filed the climate change lawsuit together with their attorneys and climate scientist James Hansen in 2015.
All the kids and teenagers in the plaintiff group have been personally impacted by climate change. Some of them live on farms being affected by drought, while others have lost their homes due to floods, or face health issues due to forest fires.
…
An initial ruling in an Oregon district court upheld their main argument that “the government has known for more than 50 years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.”
…
Peruvian farmer vs. German energy company RWE
Not just governments are facing legal challenges over climate — also a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide is suing German energy firm RWE.
He is claiming that the company’s contribution to climate change is threatening his home, and is asking RWE to take on financial responsibility for the damage.
…
ExxonMobil vs. US state attorneys
In the US, a similar case is coming to a head this year: the first-ever US legal action aimed at holding the oil giant ExxonMobil accountable for its climate change coverup.
The American multinational oil gas corporation is being sued over failing to safeguard Massachusetts communities against pollution relating to climate change impacts, and lying to the public about the risks of climate change.
…
Read more: http://www.dw.com/en/four-climate-change-lawsuits-to-watch-in-2018/a-42066735
Up until now it has mostly been enough to simply fight each case on its merits. But as the shock victory in the Netherlands demonstrates, fighting each case solely on the evidence presented at the hearing for that case may not always be enough.
Unless fossil fuel companies do more to publicly challenge the junk science underpinning the climate lawsuit gold rush, they could end up haemorrhaging large settlements to green opportunists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Unless fossil fuel companies do more to publicly challenge the junk science underpinning the climate lawsuit gold rush, they could end up”………….out of business
Nope, not in the US anyway.
Let’s all say the SCOTUS & GORSUCH.
Provided a number of things happen or do not including no Democrat President in 2020 and only retirements by Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomeyer with Kennedy a wild card if he stays to 2021.
If, for example, Thomas retires due to health and the Ninth Circuit finds for the loons of global warming, there won’t be a majority on SCOTUS and maybe not enough to grant cert.
The only solution, in the US, is for the States to convene a Convention and eliminate the power of the Federal Government and the Federal Courts to even consider the issue (including treaties). Just never going to happen.
One hopes they don’t lose because of another Little Ice Age or the next major glaciation. Even then, they’ll promote world government in order to control global cooling. The Left is relentless and, if seems, eternal in their issues and they eventually seem to win even if they need to do a 180.
Wally listen closely to cedarhill. Sit on your laurels and accumulate splinters in you ass. The left is on a steady march to Socialist Globalism and their One World Order will not be deterred by a single Presidential Term or appointment to the Supreme Court. Unless you expect to die in the next 3 years.
My understanding is that the SCOTUS relies exclusively on the EPA’s “Finding” that Co2 is “a pollutant”. Trump’s EPA MUST deliver the REAL science to erase this absurdity from the books.
To decide on policy, The US Constitution set up 3 branches of government, with the 2 whose members are elected being the ones allowed to set policy. While the courts are allowed to rule that a policy action is Unconstitutional, the Judicial Branch MAY NOT create policy. It certainly may not overturn the results of all those elections which selected the policy makers. A judge who goes against the Constitution needs to be removed from office for ‘Bad Behavior’ – and ruling against the Constitution certainly is that.
One wonders why public companies threatened by lawsuits wouldn’t spend the money to defend themselves from such profit destroying legal maneuvers? One wonders why the shareholders wouldn’t demand such action be taken to protect their share values and dividends? Given the tremendous revenues of Exxon, and the potential threat, why wouldn’t the company spend $20-50 million a year to put together a solidly researched and legally strong defense against such spurious claims? If half a dozen blogs can do such an effective job of presenting what I believe are sound arguments, why can’t Exxon do a far better, organized, coordinated job? Between this blog, the No Trick Zone, Heller’s blog, Curry’s blog, Climate Audit and others I have forgotten, the work is 60-75% done. It just needs organizing into a legal brief… something corporate lawyers should be able to do with one hand tied behind their back. So why has it not been done? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s a problem of distributed benefits, concentrated costs.
It’s a Public Relations problem that the major “fossil fuel” crude oil producing/distributing corporations …… don’t want to be a “party” to ……. all by themselves.
If all the “fossil fuel” producing companies joined together in a “class action” law suite against the lefty liberal anti-corporation “wackos” and the MSM ….. then a “staged” protest against a “ff” supplier would have no effect.
NAACP says MLK vision cannot happen without fighting ‘global warming’.
Seriously, that’s what they say now.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/15/naacp-says-mlks-vision-cant-be-achieved-without-fighting-global-warming/
Heartland Institute has provided the platform for the last decade. I’ve attended five of the International Climate Conferences ICCC, and have been a Sustaining Member for some time. Supporting HEARTLAND and its group of noted Scientists would be helpful. Perhaps supporting Judicial Watch in concert would provide a bank of lawyers to accomplish these lofty goals. Just sayin.
It’s because they acknowledge the science behind AGW.
Perhaps it is time for a class action suit against the Green Groups for driving up the cost of energy and the direct financial damages incurred by the nations poor because of it
I’d be fascinated to know the evidence for CAGW presented in the Dutch case. The news report had zero on that.
They didn’t need evidence anymore.
Courts more and more are ruling based on ideology alone.
And your evidence for that is?
Or are bloggers making comments based on ideology alone?
That depends on the ideology.
🙂
depends on the judge. But all too many are not judges, and are instead, political enablers. It ain’t just here in the USA, either.
@ur momisugly Germonio
“And your evidence for that is?”
The aforementioned dutch ruling. The ruling means the state has to cut nation emission (not just his: all dutch people’s), that is, has to compel other dutch citizen to cut their emission; which require laws, that obviously doesn’t exist (otherwise the case would had no meaning). This is a ruling that demands new laws to be written! Since when a judge think he has the power to do that?
Just piece a junk of a ruling, that should be overturned
As a government, I think i would answer: let’s ask the people (referendum).
Question: do you vote yes or no to the new law which states: [insert ruling]
Then if the answer is yes, promote the judge in a position to apply his own ruling. If the answer is no, kick him out.
My evidence? Recent history is sufficient. Except for those who believe that Ideology is supposed to trump reality, such as you AGWers.
I believe it was in Kansas City, the judge in charge of the school desegregation process ordered the city council to raise taxes so that he could have more money to restructure the schools.
Well, smoking and eating weed has been legal in Holland for a long time. I suspect that has had some impact.
It was the *Dutch Government* that was sued. Consequently, the only “evidence” needed was the Government’s own propaganda. QED
The ‘sue and settle’ technique pioneered in the US?
Political propaganda is not scientific evidence.
***It was the *Dutch Government* that was sued. Consequently, the only “evidence” needed was the Government’s own propaganda. QED***
The government’s and the green’s zeal to “care for the environment” will cost us billions or trillions of dollars. They (especially Trudeau and McKenna) have ignorantly admitted to CO2 emissions causing climate change. That is resulting in flimsy lawsuits because the ignorant government did not know how to defend itself. Meanwhile lawyers and “envirnmentalists will get rich. The oil companies made the mistake of giving grants to AGW groups and universities. They should have engaged in research to show there is nothing to the global warming scam. Getting late to be nice guy. Hopefully Trump will put a stop to some of that.
The oil companies have a chance to get New York – will they sit and do nothing?
Holland is also the home of greenpiss in europe
My Dutch friends are always puzzled why people insist on calling their country Holland when Holland is only part of The Netherlands, It’s like people calling America, Texas or California
I don’t know anyone that “insists” on calling The Netherlands something other than The Netherlands.
If you need to exaggerate then maybe you point isn’t worth making.
Amsterdam is in north Holland. Greenpeace is headquartered in Amsterdam. As you know Holland is a part of the netherlands.
Dutch government defended stating that the additional measures imposed by the court would result in only 0.000045 C less global warming by 2100 (https://www.climategate.nl/2016/04/sharon-dijksma-erkent-dat-miljardeninvesteringen-klimaat-geen-klimaateffect-hebben/).
All wind parks projected by the Dutch government are estimated to deliver a maximum global warming reduction of 0.0013 C by 2080 under the most “favorable” conditions (wind energy production factor 30% of installed capacity, avoided CO2 emissions calculated from all wind energy produced; https://www.climategate.nl/2013/11/ser-energieakkoord-kost-deltawerken-per-tienduizendste-graad-klimaatwinst/). In practice – as shown in other European countries – no CO2 or global warming reductions will be achieved. Which is good because CO2 is only beneficial for Earth and mankind. Of course no cost-benefit analysis was produced.
Also, the Dutch goeverment has appealed this judgement. Alas, the judgement of the lower court was rendered “uitvoerbaar bij voorraad” which means the judgement has to be executed, not withstanding the appeal.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/klimaatverandering/klimaatrechtszaak
So basically ALL Dutch reductions by 2100 (0.000045C) would be negated by China’s emissions next week
I am Dutch and a lower court surprisingly took that decision. There is an appeal coming up this spring and would not be surprised that a higher court rejects this stupid judgement. Recently another group tried a similar case for fine dust and this was rejected immediately. Looks like they won’t make the same mistake twice.
Jerome, yep … that is one of the notions which came to mind immediately. As a USA legal citizen, unfamiliar with Dutch legal process, I am curious about this case:
[a] specifically, who decided against their govt, in this case? A panel of judges, a jury or otherwise?
[b] on what standing of Dutch law does this radical group, Urgenda, which brought forth this suit, get to have a panel of judges or whoever “make law” — i.e., dramatically force their national change of life — for the remainder of their country?
[c] how did their govt approach their argument regarding this suit? IOW, is the Dutch govt brainwashed regarding hypothetical AGW or does it hold an alternate opinion?
[d] in view of item-c, what factual counter-arguments did the govt make and how vigorously did they make same?
On first glance, and, in full admission that I do not know the relevant critical details of this case, this case impresses me as something that here in the USA we might expect from the pre-POTUS Trump EPA; where, e.g., the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats of the EPA making “sweeping” LAW [read: WOTUS] and do so without evaluating the direct and often harmful impact on the citizens.
Judges are out of control. They seem to believe that they should be the only branch of government.
Lower Court judges certainly are. Their pronouncements shouldn’t carry legal standing until heard by highest court.
There are 3 branches of government
Judicial
Executive Jurist prudence
Legislative injustice
Clearly too many lawyers with too much time on their hands! Somehow it needs to be made much less profitable to take on lawsuits like this.
We appear to be victims of our own system, courtesy of the megalomaniacal opportunists inadvertently cranked out by academia from time to time.
https://www.cato.org/blog/epa-gives-millions-enviro-groups-sue-it
We are paying to sue ourselves. And the Eco Lawyers are all buying Tesla saloons on our largesse
Remember companies like Exxon are fighting with judges and juries that have been brainwashed into man caused warming and CO2 being bad. Facts matter less and less and those passing judgement are in a fixed position.
Global News, March 9, 2016
Re: Imperial Oil sale of about 500 ESSO gas stations to fuel distributors.
Appears Imperial Oil Canada is no longer in the gas station business.
More on the internet on this subject.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2565603/imperial-oil-to-sell-esso-stations-for-2-8b
There is an attitude common in juries that companies are just big pots of money that is available for juries to spend to correct social wrongs.
Ross McKitrick has issued a statement re the Exxon suit here.
They still cant bring themselves to mention Steve McIntyre by name after more than 15 years…..
Wow – solid punch to the credibility.
Looking on the bright side at least Mann wasn’t cited as ‘Nobel Prize winning …’
Manniac
That is a phenomenal response by McKitrick to the ridiculous accusations made in court in what seems to be an attempt to forestall mention of the take down M&M provided in 2003 of M Mann’s fatally flawed hockey stick MBH98.
Already saved and shared with friends.
Anywhere there is a lawsuit, immediately close all gas stations, support for the lawsuit will end in about 1 to 2 weeks. Even if you can get by without driving, when deliveries stop to the grocery stores, attitudes would change quickly.
Atlas needs to shrug again.
Yep. Send America into darkness and cold … let the Children have their way.
Like the old bumper sticker from the 70’s
Ban Mining – let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark,
Eric, you really need to update your information and this post. You missed this major development:
“The ExxonMobil filing makes the obvious point:
The stark and irreconcilable conflict between what these municipal governments alleged in their respective complaints and what they disclosed to investors in their bond offerings indicates that the allegations in the complaints are not honestly held and were not made in good faith. It is reasonable to infer that the municipalities brought these lawsuits not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/climate-change-california-hypocrisy-turned-up-to-11.php
Good link – I particularly like “At least two municipal governments [one of them San Mateo] reassured investors that they were “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur, and if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the County and the local economy.”
But this is not exactly a public campaign to overturn junk climate science – its evidence presented for a court case.
Not directly but in the process of arguing this case the junk science will inevitably be exposed, as well as the selective use of the real science. These governments are suing Exxon for the certain damages while they tell investors may not happen. Pretty inconvenient.
It is an approach more likely to be understood and accepted by the courts than all the scientific arguments you could possibly muster.
This clearly shows they are not telling the truth in their court action, or their fund raising on the bond markets, OR BOTH. There must be some action that can be taken against them (obtaining money under false pretenses etc.)
SteveT
A liberal use of the objection “Assumes facts not in evidence” by defense counsel would quickly bring this travesty to an end.
YES. That objection should be like a beating drum EVERY TIME somebody “sues” over “climate” BS. And should be used to FORCE somebody to “prove” human-induced disaster is factual as opposed to computer generated fantasy or opinion (regardless of whether the “opinion’ is that of supposed “experts”).
I can just see it all unfolding now. They come to arrest Anthony and to get all the names and IP addresses of all us commenters. Griff is the head of the Inquisition, and we are all hanging by our thumbs for daring to be skeptical of Science.
Don’t laugh…the NSA and 5 Eyes 👀 all have extensive files on each of us. We will all be prosecuted for our ‘thought’ crimes and be sent to serve out our sentencing punishments on the northern tip of Elsemere Island.
Welcome to 1984, and Animal Farm. Looking forward to seeing you all soon.
I got a good deal on a super-warm parka this past Christmas Season. Oops … now I just got an extended sentence for mentioning the make-believe religious character … instead of the solstice holiday time.
“Griff is the head of the Inquisition..”
I wasn’t expecting that…
Not planning on arresting anyone.
I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.
@griff
“I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.”
Well, “re-evaluate my viewpoints”, is exactly what I did. I started to look into CAGW business out of fear for a family home close to the ocean, in an area that were islands just a few century ago. Then it turned clear that no risk existed for submersion, or even for these to be islands again. That Greenland WAS indeed green when vikings discovered it (I previously believed what I had been taught: that had been some sort of sc@m to attract colonists; it wasn’t ). That variation of several degrees in average temperature in the course of decades are very common in history, which, combined with the chaotic nature of climate just doesn’t allow the rejection of null hypothesis “this is all natural, and can go back anytime”.
That billions were spent on this non-issue instead of real ones.
That the proposed cure is to slash earning by x2, while reducing the power needed for each $ earned by another /2 with unknown means, for a total of /4 power.
That this cure will result in the predicted themogeddon delayed to a single year in a century (2101 instead 2100).
That the same people who pretend this is THE problem, endangering the whole Earth (no less), don’t put it at n°1 on the to do list, but behind closing all nuclear power stations, preventing new dam, fighting GMO, ranting against Trump and Pepe, fighting racism and sexism by being racist and sexist, fighting for free speech by accusing free speakers of causing trouble, threatening jobs and even life of dissenters, and, last but not least, maintaining as high a powered standard of living as they can afford for themselves…
So I stopped worrying about GW (and even started to wish it), and started being angry against the government, IPCC, billionaires enriching themselves out of the business, whornalists making a living out of the hype, and useful !diots you perfectly represent, Griff
Now it is up to you to
1) re-evaluate your viewpoints just like I did.
or
2) start living as preach: divide by 4 your power use, which, included gray energy of every thing you buy, means dividing by 4 your budget (I guess you may use the saved 3/4 to invest into “renewable energy”, though). As a bonus, this will allow you to tell people “look, I did it myself, don’t be scared of what it means”, which is a GREAT boost in credibility.
Griff:
Answer the question that you have been asked many times and FAILED. Then re-evaluate YOUR position>
Griff: Shoe us a study that MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2.
@paqyfelyc spot on.
A study, not a computer model.
“I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.”
I do that nearly daily. That is why I am here reading the news; I also visit ATTP; figure between the two of them the important points of view are covered. Hot Whopper is merely a litany of complaining and not particularly useful. SkS is propaganda, sometimes useful, usually not, IMO.
Prior to Climategate I didn’t care much either way about this hobby of worrying about climate. Farmers have worried about climate for as long as there has been farming.
Climategate revealed that climate science was in bed with politics; it had been “weaponized” to use a metaphor. It also revealed that most science is in bed with politics particularly where publicly funded.
Be careful what you ask for, Griff. A large number of people haven’t seriously looked beyond the propaganda on this issue. Most of the climate skeptics got that way when they did start investigating it more thoroughly. More and more people are likely do that when their living costs increase substantially due to climate legislation.
Widespread reevaluation won’t turn out well for your agenda. And that may be why some of the alarmists really are suggesting arresting people and restricting freedom of speech.
And by the way, why aren’t you reevaluating your viewpoint? As I posted here on 1/12/18
Just chiming in here to note that I too “re-evaluated my viewpoint” years ago, when I was a global-warming champion alarmist. Make that “a global-warming alarmist parrot” — merely mimicking the trash-logic to which I was exposed. The fact that I used to be 180 degrees from where I am today speaks volumes about the flaws in the “consensus” view.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. CO2 is NOT a big deal — probably NOT a deal at all, where warming is concerned.
Humans cannot change the climate with a flea-fart amount of their industrial gas added to a piss-ant amount of the gas already in the atmosphere naturally.
Which reminds me: The other day, when the temperature outside was around 10 degrees F, I took a vat of my homemade dog food outside to cool. It consists mostly of rice, and as you might well know, hot rice stays hot for a long time. Anyway, I sat my vat of food (composed largely of the hot brown rice, just off the stove) onto a table, as a gentle, frigid breeze lifted steam off it into the air. Well, I placed my hand a foot above the surface where that steam was coming off, and I could NOT feel any of the warmth. Think about that — a foot above a steaming vat of hot rice, and I could NOT feel any of its warmth. What I felt was the gentle, frigid breeze of that 10 F air.
Personally, I believe all the major fossil fuel; explorers, providers, shippers, and refiners should simply STOP. OK … the children want to play. Let em play without ANY fossil fuels. No more production or transport of ANY “nasty” “carbon” products. Give them the PERSPECTIVE that their own parents (and mentor, Dr. James Hansen) FAILED to give them. 6 moths to 1-year of ZERO carbon based fuel production. None.
South Australia comes to mind.
As does Victoria.
Regrettably, Kenji, that hurts the rest of us.
The oil companies’ new mea culpa:
First they came for the coal companies, and we did not speak out—
Because we were not a coal company.
Then they came for the nuclear power companies, and we did not speak out—Because we were not a nuclear power company.
The oil companies could have shot this Lysenkoist hoax down in the first six months if they’d been more interested in truth than in market share and profits.
Jorge: Agree 100%. Instead of shooting it down, oil execs sent them money, and if it could be traced, the same money is now used to sue them. It’s as if the Huns rode into Rome on horses bought with roman tribute. On the plus side, I love the response noted above, that oil co. cite the city’s own bond reports to investors showing the Plaintiff contradicts itself in statements in which the City has a fiduciary duty to be truthful. Arguing the science will put most judges to sleep, but showing the other side tells investors the opposite of what it is saying in court will get most judges fairly riled.
People who sue those who enrich the atmosphere with CO2 should start by eliminating their daily consumption of the very food that atmospheric CO2 produces.
Fair is fair!
These lawsuits are the modern-day incarnation of “burn her, she’s a witch.”
The answer to such phoney lawsuits is simple……ENORMOUS COUNTERSUITS. Let them know that there is a BIG downside to such nonsense.
Absolutely. These are frivolous lawsuits. Countersue – big league.
And get what ? they have no money and by doing so you give them martyr status in the eyes of the ‘faith’
Even if the case is throw out as a joke, by raising these cases than have nothing to lose , and only need a little to claim a ‘great victory ‘
The court of public opinion is the only one that matters , not science , not the law.
Hansen has money …and a reputation …. take away both .
Lawyers can also be made liable for junk suits.
Yep, Urgenda did that in the Netherlands. But the government appealed with a higher court and among other things asking them what the effect was of the measures Ugenda asked. According to calculations it was 0.000045 deg C.
More here (in Dutch) https://www.climategate.nl/2016/04/grieven-staat-in-urgenda-zaak/
Suing the Kingdom of the Netherlands is usually a futile effort.
Even if you make some headway in lower courts, if the bureaucrats do not like it, they will appeal to the King and his advisers. And it is a very difficult to convince the King to condemn the King.
For ‘the good of the realm’ it always gets flat out rejected or a law gets passed to counter the effects of the ruling.
RLu, it seems to me that you are overemphasizing the royal dimension here greatly. I live in The Netherlands and have just a superficial knowledge of our judicial system. However, I have never seen anything resembling the possibility of the queen or king influencing our courts. That even applies to politics and law making. Only during times of formation of a new government is there some influence, though not that big. So more of a symbolic nature. It should be totally discarded in my point of view of course. But then again, there are other priority items that should be done, such as the reduction of the power of the state over the individual. We are not a free people.
It might be worthwhile to counter sue, and bury the court with valid evidence that calls into question spurious claims of injury due to climate change, such as drought, hurricanes, ‘bomb cyclones’, etc., etc., etc. Energy companies just need to have the courage and patience to appeal court findings until rational minds (perhaps the SCOTUS) render a reasonable verdict. A counter suit would put fear in the hearts of the claimants that continued pursuit of these frivolous suits could become catastophically costly to them should they lose.
The municipal politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats are, no doubt, regretting ever having heard of Gore and company.
That’s what I’ve been saying.
Tony Heller has all the evidence needed in US.
Speaking of lawsuits: why is there no news on Ball vs Mann? Anyone know what might be happening, and when?
He is still a case of ducking and diving for all he is worth, for although very keen to bring court cases oddly Mann seems to be very reluctant to see them ever get to actual court for some reason.
But it does help when someone else is picking up the legal bills , who is a very good question.
And what’s up with the Ball – Weaver lawsuit?
Post your property with no trespassing and no soliciting signs and make any servers get a warrant to come on your property? Don’t accept any papers, envelopes, packages from anyone you don’t know? Including registered mail.
And in Ireland, groups of Irish alarmists are bringing the Irish government to court over Ireland’s failure to avert climate change.
Effectively bringing themselves to court, when they’re asked to demonstrate the percentage of “climate change” that has been attributed to Ireland, they go uncharacteristically silent.
https://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/climate-case
Similar silence ensues when any of these people are asked to demonstrate exactly how much “climate change” Ireland is potentially able to “avert”.
Thing is, hard facts and actual details aren’t particularly important here, ideology is.
But keep the appeals for donations coming guys. We can all have fun suing ourselves.
The legal profession will be laughing all the way to the bank.
If putas are the oldest ‘profession’, which would be the second oldest?
I’ve often thought that lawsuits ought to be taken out against firms claiming to operate from ‘100% renewable energy’ when that cannot possibly be the case.
Also, those who ‘divest from’ fossil fuels should be placed under a court order not to use them.
Back in 2007, I was working as a motoring journalist and attended Toyota’s 70th anniversary celebrations in Europe. I asked one of their senior executives why the car companies didn’t hire their own scientists to question the supposed CO2 warming mantra.
He just shrugged his shoulders and said ‘We just do what governments tell us to.’
Let’s hope that the major industries in all countries now have the courage to mount a proper challenge to all the CO2 scary stories, and lance the proverbial boil once and for all.
This is what they say now
https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/toyotas-vision-climate-sustainability/
Another example of Griff putting propaganda ahead of reality.
“Griff January 16, 2018 at 5:07 am”
In 2008, IIRC, Kevin Rudd, the then PM of Australia gave Toyota about a AU$90mil+ grant to develop an Australian made hybrid even though Toyota had the technology and were already selling units. That year Toyota posted a profit of about AU$90mil. Coincidence I am sure. But I am sure any car maker will say anything to get some free money to assist their bottom lines.
Is the forest god, Pan, going to PAY fossil fuel companies for increased rates of tree growth, thanks to more atmospheric CO2? For increased forest acreage, thanks to more productive agriculture on existing farmland?
Can consumers get sued for failing to appreciate more reliable food supplies? For refrigeration?
Can anti-nukers get sued for blocking low carbon power? Can athletes get sued for exhaling more than their share? Bean eaters for farting too much?
Fair’s fair, right?
Is anyone going to sue China for burning more coal the the rest of the world out together? Boycott all Chinese trade goods?
Didn’t think so. Tort lawyers aren’t all that popular there. Only rich, ungrateful, frivolous countries can afford such luxuries.
Are they going to sue Russian/Saudi/Venezuelan petro companies? Or is it just the American companies that are targeted.
Children goaded by James Hansen are suing to prevent their cushy way of life from continuing? To match how far back in time? 1700? 1500? The Stone Age?
Can Hansen get sued for being a Pied Piper?
“March” how far back in time?
Those same “children” these days are using the internet to “campaign” against “climate change.” And they’re too deluded to see the hypocrisy in that – the internet is the most energy hogging method of communication and research ever created.
Every child “social justice warrior” needs to experience a “fossil fuel free summer,” EACH YEAR until they are providing for themselves, devoid of cell phones, computers, air conditioning, cars, electricity, etc. Let them wear their stinking clothing – or wash it by hand by scrubbing it against a wet rock, and air dry it. Make them gather firewood to cook their dinner (and even THAT is a violation of the “fossil fuel free” standard, since I’m assuming they would still be supplied with “store bought” food, but they would have to WALK to the store to get it every day – no refrigeration at home! But let’s face it, they would starve trying to hunt or gather their food). Two months of that between school years every year should put the fear of “what happens when you demonize fossil fuels” into them nicely.
Courts? Or black robed oligarchs?