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.
Lawsuits do not change what is or is not true.
The observational evidence unequivocally supports the assertion that the greenhouse gas mechanism saturates. The warming in the last 150 years was hence not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
Another study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. The period of time for the study was from -540 million to 0 years. The study linked to below used the most recent paleodata and is supported by other studies.
Tip of the hat to NoTricksZone.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf
“The observational evidence unequivocally supports the assertion that the greenhouse gas mechanism saturates.”
I do not believe your belief. When the atmosphere is 100 percent CO2, *then* it is saturated. Now it is 0.04 percent; hardly saturated. It would be more correct to assert that the infrared capture and release mechanism is largely superseded at surface pressure by convection and mechanical transfer of heat energy.
Good grief – it looks like we’re losing. 🙁
Isn’t there a Gravy Train here? Surely world class ‘sceptical ‘ scientists appearing for Exxon can claim a fat fee? But probably more effective to appear ‘pro bono’. Anyway this may spell the collapse of AGW
I would like to ask the farmers in the US what used to grow on their land before Mr John Deere steel , back in the 19th century, ploughed it up. If it was Prairie grass i would like to point out that this was a drought resistant grass that indicated what the climate could produce and probably not a good idea to think that droughts would not happen.
“I would like to ask the farmers in the US what used to grow on their land before Mr John Deere steel , back in the 19th century, ploughed it up.”
When you die such an opportunity may arise to do exactly that.
The West appears to be endlessly inventive in this era in bizarre ways to destroy their own cultures.
Can’t two play this game? Is there any way that climate numerate people could sue a group of activists or Mann for losses because of the rise in fuel costs etc . Any lawyers looking for a class action and some rich backers. It would be overdue to see Greenpeace or WWF in court answering for some of their misconduct.
Certainly, two can play this game.
C/AGW is an ideology-based concept, backed by altered and compromised data, dependent on the faith and support of people whose common response is “I believe in global [whatever], including threats of punishment and violence toward those whose opinions differ.
In addition to the ‘I believe’ responses and the politicization of C/AGW, there is the fraud aspect of it, the suspicion that it is a money-grubbing scam.
There is plenty of other physical evidence to support that, starting with for AG Loretta Lynch’s investigation into a RICO complaint by a professor at George Washington Uiversity in Virginia, which turned into a RICO investigation of the professor when it was shown that he had bulldozed 19 other scientists into signing his complaint. That’s the place to start, and Mann’s constant attention grabs, Nye’s pubic threats, the routine altering of raw data to suit an agenda, and the repeated denigration of people who don’t follow the “I believe in climate change” mantra show that this is an ideology-based concept and a fraud inflicted on the public and uninformed masses, and not the pursuit of valid scientific investigation into atmospheric science.
This is why Poland is proposing judicial reforms to stop left wing activists in the judiciary from forcing their insanity on the nation. In Poland’s case the judiciary is a hangover from the days of Soviet rule and of course the Poles don’t want that system propagating into their new era. The EU of course are screeching blue murder over it since it decapitates one branch of their multi-headed hydra. The Poles want more transparency and accountability from their judges who should be subject to the same democratic process as everyone else. The idea of a self-selecting independent judiciary is fine until it goes rogue as we now see in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The prospect of batsh!t crazy old leftist judges upholding these kind of activist suits and crippling the energy sector is truly frightening.
CephusO – a hundred per cent right, I just hope that Poland sticks it out and refuses to buckle under the EU assault.
Poland is trying to stop the judiciary having any influence over govt.
this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.
Sorry it is Griff, it’s an abuse of power. Governments are there to make the laws, Judiciary are there to enforce it.
What is happening is some garbage like what the government is doing is going to kill my children and the planet in 100 years and seek to use the law to change government policy. So you get some stupid funded minority green group abusing the law. It worked in some country so they try it in other countries. The judiciary do have powers to protect individuals but in many cases they are overstepping the line.
The majority in most countries are getting fed up with this minority rabble and we are starting to kick politician heads and butts, who are trying to control the judiciary. You have seen the backlash starting (Germany still can’t cobble a government together) and it’s going to get worse and the greens are going to be crucified if they start doing real economic harm.
Oh really, and why would the Polish people wish for an unelected and undeposable left wing activist judiciary to have the power to overrule their democratically elected leaders? Laws are not made by the judiciary. They are supposed to administer the law made by democratically elected representatives and nothing more. If they refuse to do that and try to interfere with government by interposing their own personal ideologies then that is deeply wrong.
Poland want judges to be democratically elected in the same way as politicians are and if they don’t do their jobs and/or stick within the bounds of their remit than they can be voted out again. None of this will appeal to a left wing totalitarian halfwit such as yourself of course but it does appeal to the Polish people and being a sovereign people they can tell both the EU and yourself where to stick it.
“this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.”
The left is perfectly willing to use any tactic or strategy to achieve its aims; including pretending to its own opposition. However, the left/right thing is itself somewhat misleading — if you go far enough left you find yourself also at the farthest right. Both tend toward totalitarianism.
The left presumes upon democracy; but when the majority doesn’t go along with the script suddenly it is the minority whose rights are most important. 900 persons -> judge -> Citizens of Netherlands.
“this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.”
That is precisely what it is.
If this is allowed-
“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.”
The I’m afraid it’s game over.
Not really. The burden of proof lies on the complainant to show that the government knew. That requires actual data that have not been compromised or altered to suit an agenda. The proof would also require a report AFTER a specific time period, which they have indicated is thousands of years. How would that report be obtained? Do any of them have time machines?
It’s simply an allegation that fails to account for naturally-occurring events over which no one has any control, and is based on assumptions derived from altered raw data.
If the burning of fossil fuels is somehow to blame then the appropriate parties to sue are those who have actually burned the fossil fuels and that is not the fossil fuel companies. One believes that the burning of fossil fuels thatn they should stop making use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels before they take legal action.
The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind, including the oil companies, have no control. The party responsible for climate change and extreme weather evernt is Mother Nature. It is hence Mother Nature that should be seued. Lots of luck collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.
Interesting. It would then exact money from not only power plants, but anyone who has driven a gas/diesel-powered car or truck.
Think of all the gardeners in Kalifornia who use gas powered tools for mowing grass and blowing leaves.
People who build homes, and employ Caterpillar and John Deere dozers. Metal refiners who use coal to make the steel which is used to build the skyscapers (or any three-plus story building). If you pay someone else to burn the fuel, are you any less guilty? (If you hire someone for murder, you go to jail – if caught & convicted.) If we just move our manufacturing to China, aren’t we still burning MORE coal?
If you build a windmill or a solar panel using fossil fuel in the process, you are still guilty if you believe people are to blame if they use fossil fuels.
It just gets ridiculous. How can these people win in court?
As for farming- Worldwide 2017 was another bumper year for agriculture. They should just produce the results for the last few years.
Whilst I understand the theory behind global warming theory what is the science that indicates that CO2 emissions cause climate change? It seems that somehow the argument has morphed from global warming to climate change without any real attempt to explain the scientific lab experiments that show the theoretical concepts.So whilst there can be some scientific potential for global warming, climate change has been spun by the warmists from thin air. Even the IPCC casts serious doubts on most activities that constitute climate change. I would also question the science on whether there are any proofs that the warming or climate change is in fact dangerous. The fact that these cases actually don’t get thrown out proves to me how biased and corrupt the judiciary is in most western civilisations.
It’s nearly impossible to determine cause and effect in a complex chain of events if you can’t isolate the variables. CO2 is only one variable in climate, but there is no way of knowing whether it’s a trivial or important factor. There are many others.
Propagandists, do-gooders,and ambulance-chasers have contaminated the equation by glomming onto CO2 for their own purposes:
1. The non-scientific public knows what CO2 is.
2. CO2 makes a politically convenient scapegoat.
Actually, there IS an easy way to identify CO2 as being a complete non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature; the long term paloeclimate record, which shows NO correlation which suggests that CO2 “drives” temperature, and includes significant episodes of REVERSE correlation (underscoring CO2 as a non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature), and the ice core temperature/CO2 records, which show CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, up AND down, and ALSO shows temperatures START going DOWN when CO2 levels are at their HIGHEST level – AND while CO2 levels are still increasing (which AGAIN, underscores the FACT that CO2 is a complete non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature).
On the other hand is the “climate” psuedo-science, which is nothing more than the HYPOTHETICAL effect of increasing CO2 level, which applies IF and ONLY IF “all other things” are “held equal.” Which they are NOT – and clearly based on the Earth’s climate history, the “feedbacks” are negative/offsetting feedbacks rendering CO2 a complete non-factor.
Oh, and it gets worse – in order to come up with their “scary scenarios,” they actually have to ASSUME the existence of POSITIVE feedback loops, which the Earth’s climate history clearly shows DO NOT EXIST.
In the tobacco lawsuits, the lawyers got a big chunk of the settlement, pushing up the price of cigarettes. The states could have increased tax on tobacco without a lawsuit.
Go ahead California, the price of gas is not high enough for you, push it up another two or three bucks.
Indeed and it is that ‘blood in the water ‘ that attracts the lawyers now , there is very big money to be made if they can pull it off. And it is not going to go on windmills but private jets and bench front houses for the green they care about is the colour of money .
If the politicians raised the taxes on cigarettes, then the politicians would have to answer to the voters.
If they can get the courts to do their dirty work, they can pretend to be clean come the next election.
I doubt there’s a price on cigarettes that would impact sales. The price flexibility (elasticity) of demand is very low; that is to say, the demand flexibility is low and that means the price can go way up, and has! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
It is similar for gasoline. People must have it and will pay; the consequences ripple onto everything else.
There is a fundamental issue which gets little publicity. That is the divide between real science which historically follows the Scientific Method and Post Normal Science which depends on consensus. Post Normal Science seems to be used when it is not possible to achieve a result by real Science. For instance we do not know how the climate might have changed without human intervention ergo we cannot measure human impact with any certainty. This a difficult concept for MSM to publicise because it is beyond the wit of many people without a scientific training. We need good communicators to take the baton.
Spen, that’s the hard fight– good communicators communicating real science. The apparatus developed by the left with their lapdogs in the media and academia presents a formidable wall against the possibility of a widely informed populace. Put simply: the left animates whatever narrative it wants to tell and enough people believe it to make reality. Thus, if CO2 might raise the global temperate in 100 years, that’s a scary thing that everyone should believe! Scientific method be damned.
Spoiled children suing for better weather, heh.
Surely, the question to ask these lawyers is do you use fossil fuels in any form? If so you are also responsible in part for your claimed impact on the climate.
I’ve seen frivolous lawsuits slapped down. I’ve been subjected to one, and the idiot lost. This is frivolous litigation based on ideology, or “faith”, not on hard numbers and measurements that can be corroborated by raw data. As we’ve all seen, the raw data have been altered to suit an agenda, and that will continue until someone files a complaint of fraud over it, indicating plainly that it is a grab for money by the CAGWers/ Warmians/greenbeans.
An unreported spill of hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan by US Steel into has resulted in Mayor Rahmbo jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/u-s-steel-lake-michigan-pollution-hexavalent-chromium/
The issue is that while it’s 30 pounds, not 30 or 300 tons of the stuff, it is a harmful compound used in the steel industry. Apparently (according to the mayor) it was not reported to the EPA as it should have been. This is a legitimate complaint, but he just HAD to thrown in the politics (all the Trump admin’s fault), which is a distinct flaw in his complaint and may cost him. A more important issue is that US Steel is in Indiana, and it was that state’s venue, not Chicago’s. I don’t know if this will go very far, but he’s facing being diselected from the mayor’s office, so he hadda do something, right?
The difference between this complaint and those others is that the spill is a real event, is measurable, and the compound is harmful, and it is provable with facts.
The others are not, because they are based on emotions, not proofs. The attorneys involved in this smell money and don’t give a crap who wins or loses because they still get paid, regardless. By the time this nonsense is over, I sincerely hope someone shows that this is a faith-based complaint based on ideology and greed for cash, not on real science. AG Loretta Lynch’s RICO booboo in 2016 might be a good place to starat.
Now this is good news . . .
a group, today, with the science being settled, raises a law suit to force the government to make changes with a stated specific purpose.
And when the underlying science is proved wrong or the opposite happens . . . ?
The government can sue the people of “(Insert your own country name here)” for getting it wrong !
Suggesting that “fossil fuel” energy defend itself is a quaint idea. If they do, they get a RICO action against them in the US.
They couldn’t win on the science.
They couldn’t win using politics.
Now they are relying on the courts to give them what they couldn’t get any other way.
Taking this nonsense to the Courts may be a good idea. Trying to defend this nonsense in a public court of law will expose the fraud.
Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud
Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/climate-change-double-standard-double-speak-proves-slimate-clience-is-a-fraud/
No, the courts are corrupted by the climate creeps. Be careful.
Meh, experts in energy gathering and delivery know little about reverse brainwashing cultists. A one week strike would be much more effective. Instead of a hunger strike, it could be called, you’re going hungry strike.
The climate machine is after the whole if our society.
What pathetic parasitic monsters.
But how to push back?
They have corrupted every level of school and government. Dominate media nearly completely.
Google could turn off all internet access to all skeptics anytime they choose.
And as we have seen, when climate predictions fail, and they all fail, the climate parasites dig in deeper and get more angry.
When IPCC reports are no longer regarded as the Bible on climate change, then the word, “evidence” will have to have a face lift, where climate arguments are concerned.
Since the climate lobby claim it is a life or death matter the energy firms should turn that back on them and say that they must provide quality control proof to life critical standards if they expect any action that costs money to be acceptable to the firms and therefore to be taken.
Since climate data fails the QA tests miserably for one of the cheapest chains in the UK it should at least provide a good start for killing off any claims.
Even this cheap chain expect comparison of the data measurement equipment and environment with a reference standard to be done regularly and climate scientists do not even consider it necessary in most countries to pass peer reviews.
The problem at least with the US court setup is, the decision should be based on who argues a better case rather than universally accepted “truths”. Relying on universally accepted truths rather than arguing a better case is sheer laziness.
The U.S. justice system is about following rules, not about finding the truth. That makes it uniquely incapable to engage in scientific disputes.