Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Colorado local governments are worried that global warming might melt their ski season.
Latest legal fight accusing oil companies of climate change launched in Colorado
Sebastien Malo
APRIL 18, 2018 / 9:00 AM
NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Three Colorado communities filed a lawsuit against oil companies on Tuesday, launching the latest legal battle seeking damages for what they claim are the costs of adapting to climate change.
The lawsuit, filed in Colorado by the city of Boulder and the counties of San Miguel and Boulder, accuses Suncor and Exxon Mobil Corp of creating a public nuisance by producing and selling fossil fuels that cause climate change.
…
Suncor and Exxon “sold and promoted fossil fuels knowing that climate impacts were substantially certain to occur if unchecked fossil fuel use continued,” the communities said in the complaint.
…
Their region of Colorado is vulnerable to a wide range of climate threats, from droughts that imperil farming to warm winters that harm the ski industry, they said.
“Climate change is not just about sea level rise. It affects all of us in the middle of the country as well,” said Elise Jones, a Boulder County commissioner, in a statement.
…
My thought – why should fossil fuel companies continue to sell their products in places where those products are no longer welcome?
Fossil fuel companies should respect the will of the people, by negotiating an orderly withdrawal of their services from counties and states which no longer want their evil dispatchable energy. Colorado counties opposed to fossil fuels could use this negotiated period of orderly withdrawal as an opportunity to restructure their winter economy around solar energy and wind power.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
another comment lost to the WordPress SpamFilter. I think the Google Liberals are shadow banning some folks.
Why worry about snow when there’s no gasoline to get to the ski hill?
Warmer, moist air currents off the Pacific might yield better snow conditions in the Rockies as I understand it.
What, Me worry?
axolotl, furshlugginer, potrzebie and veeblefetzer!
As the one-time possessor of Mad No 4, I still find that ‘furshlugginer’ comes readily to lips when I’m too frustrated to swear properly!
During which time the population of both Boulder and nearby Denver have increased 10 fold and more.
San Miguel County, home of the town of Telluride, where every Ski bum, eco warrior loves to be. They have shut down every type of construction, mining, lumber job in the entire county and neighboring Montrose County. I left San Miguel County in 1984 because the whackos were already so thick you couldn’t sneeze without a permit. Very depressed area, still have relatives there in service jobs only.
NOAA data
Snowfall Boulder Colorado Monthly Means
as you can see 3 of the 4 highest snowfall in March were in the prime CO2 years with a huge one in 2016. The judge just has to take 1 look at this data and conclude Looks like lots of snow to me.
One wonders what the plaintiff lawyers are thinking when they take a case like this?
Sure Ill take your case suckers but you aint got a snowballs chance in hell of winning this one but i get paid anyway.
They get paid whether they win or not.
In fact the longer the case drags out, the more they get paid.
I also downloaded the data from https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/boulder/bouldersnow.html#Latest (noting that they have the disclaimer at the bottom of the page):
Assuming that the dreaded fossil fuel has only had a noticable effect since 1850, a quick Excel analysis shows that (x = year):
– pre-1950, the linear slope is 0.2253x+65.223 = MORE snow each year
– post-1950 the linear slope is 0.2399x+77.419 = EVEN MORE snow each year
– for the entire period of the data the slope is 0.2342x+64.969 = ever increasing snow levels
It should be a difficult argument to claim that fossil fuels are going to create less snow when the data shows otherwise, although feelings are so much more powerful an argument than data.
Apologies for not knowing how to embed Excel graphs
Caveat – I am not a statistician
i graphed those Boulder snowfall totals by year and HA! the last 50 yrs of snowfall is substantially greater than the 1st 50 (from 1895-2017) and a graph of the past 50 yrs also shows an increasing trendline. I think those totals need some “adjustments”.
The larger snow years seem to coincide with El Nino years. So if Climate Change is supposed to bring about a permanent El Nino situation, Colorado should be really snowy
It staggers the imagination (and casts doubts about democracies) that elected officials (most of whom are likely lawyers) could file a lawsuit so incredibly laughable. They want Exxon to pay damages for things that have not occurred. So exactly how does one calculate the cost of non-existent damages? And why only sue Exxon? It is only one of probably a million companies selling, producing,, using fossil fuels. What’s so special about Exxon?
I would love to see the Oil Corps to take their business out of those counties and see how long it takes for the natives take to change their governmental leaders to some who are a bit more malleable.
Too little snow! Sue Exxon!!
Too much snow! Sue Exxon!!
Just the right amount of snow! Sue Exxon!!
And more than a million lawyers wonder why Americans think there are too many lawyers in America.
There is no such thing as “just right” in the adjustocene era. Though there was perfection in the good old days.
Check out the Colorado basin – last 4 years June snowpack double historical avg’s
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/co/snow/products/?cid=nrcs144p2_063325
Fossil fuels what done it???
To my eye from the graph further up it looks like ever since the warming back in the 1920/30s that snowfall around Boulder continually increased with the warming, Peaked in the late 1940s, and then never went back down on average.
RE: “Colorado is vulnerable to a wide range of weather
climatethreats, from droughts that imperil farming to warm winters that harm the ski industry,…..”It’s just weather. Weather changes, day to day, year to year, decade to decade. That’s what it does. Adapt!
From what I’ve been reading, there is no shortage of snow in the USA these days.
In a similar bastion of socialism-run-amuck, the Venezuelan military has taken over their oil industries. The oil field and refinery workers quit en masse, as they are paid slave wages and rampant inflation has made that pittance worthless.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/04/17/venezuelan-oil-workers-quit-en-masse-amid-military-takeover/
Amok.
I think either spelling is acceptable
Amok is more usual however
There is a fictional novel by that name from the early 1960s, if I remember right. A Japanese soldier in hiding many years after the war ends, comes out of hiding not knowing that the war ended, good read.
Yes I see. Here is a definition for amuck: Amuck definition, mad with murderous frenzy.
Whoops memory miss. The book Amok was written in 1978 by George Fox, still it is a gripping short novel.
obviously they can’t hope to get anywhere with this because SNOW is breaking records in all all parts, this is just sp they can put another ‘global warming’ headline on the wires
I would imagine the plaintiffs’ lawyers are being paid for by Colorado taxpayers. Lots of travel, hotel stays, in addition to the hundreds of dollars per hour charged by the law firms. In return, I imagine these law firms are generous with their campaign donations.
In the past, this kind of corruption was more limited to the usual crowd of contractors and suppliers, but climate change has opened up new opportunities for cronyism. The cities in question didn’t sue because they wanted to win an award or settlement, what they want is for these suita to be dragged out indefinitely, and let the fees piles up.
Very plausible and it may be worse than that.
Knowing the conduct of judges and lawyers in countries such as Indonesia, all parties may be involved in corruption.
Exxon management may be on a kick-back from the lawyers representing both sides and the judge (as well known In some countries) could be involved.
If not in this case, the tactic will come to the USA in time.
Litigation lawyers are continually and fervently looking for ways to fleece the public purse.
In the late eighties, the east cost of Sweden experienced a winter with very heavy snowfall. Anti nuclear activists sued a large nuclear power plant located right in the middle of the blizzards and wanted them to pay for the additional costs for clearing rods of snow. The logic was that the cooling water/vapor caused snowfall. The lawsuit was not successful.
Coal and natural gas power stations use cooling water as well.
Here, we have universities ‘divesting’ from fossil fuel investments under pressure from the Greens. I reckon we ought to make it mandatory for them to cease using fossil fuels when they do this.
Why sue the oil companies, from what I can see over 80% of power generation is from fossil fuels
Includes natural gas.
Indeed. Government branches should not be able to pick a scapegoat and litigate, but they should always seek for damages using equal terms from all deemed guilty. Any other way will disturb the market balance and is a kind of hidden economical support to some companies.
Greenpeace Inc. might have a different logic, a Serengeti strategy (ht Mann), where the attack is targeted on the most profitable kill possible. They invented the #exxon scapegoating, and will hunt because hunting keeps the attackers from ripping each other’s throats open. They can’t stop. Exxon needs to fight back. They need to be able to say ‘you will loose’, and countersue in order to squeeze out from them why did the litigation happen in the first place.
Lose. Not loose.
Much as I love to ski, it is a pretty pointless pastime, and one that is massively fossil fuel producing. The vast majority of skiers travel by plane and then car to the resort, use lifts that rely on fossil fuels for electricity, use huge great fossil fuel powered piste-bashers and skidoos and other vehicles all over the mountains, heat restaurants 3,000, up, heat accommodation at 2,000m up, transport huge quantities of food and equipment up mountains every day etc tec.
How can people who make their livings do all that, complain about the people allowing them to do all that?
* massively fossil fuel consuming *
Only the “special” people aka royalty can get a pass. Back to the days of a feudalistic society…. a complete dystopia which has ironically been dispayed by Hollywood in books and movies like “Rollerball” and “The Hunger Games”.
Lose. Not loose.
Feudal society was NOT dystopian
It was a caste based system that worked and everyone knew their worth and their place and all had rights and all had duties.
Today’s elites show less sense.
We should all sue the ski resorts for burning so much fossil fuel that it is they who are contributing to the warming.
Open air hot tubs.
To explain Boulder, CO I tell people that setting “Mork and Mindy” there was absolutely brilliant because nobody would have noticed anything strange about Mork.
Years ago I read a read a front–page article in their legitimate newspaper. It was about someone who had moved to Boulder because he was convinced that a huge earthquake was coming and that Boulder would now be on the west coast. This wasn’t because of geology but because of the “good karma”. How did he know this would happen? “Little people” told him!
So they are concerned that winters won’t be cold enough for rich folk to ski and never mind heating, power or transport for the poorer folk that just want to stay alive. How progressive!
Funny. Yes, greeneryism is an elitist hobby. They say they are saving the children and poor minorities in the third world, but in fact they just drink some latte and wonder the difference between a plastic cup and a cardboard-based cup.
As if that was relevant in the first place.
And yes, many of them just couldn’t care less to have children.
It’s the latest CAGW gravy train folks. All aboard! The only requiremeny is to claim that somehow, you are, or will be a “victim” of “climate change”. Anything now is “proof” of “climate change”. Got an ant infestation? “Climate change”. Scarcity of ants? Uh-oh, “climate extinction” = “climate change”. And, for your convenience, sharply-dressed lawyers are already onboard, ready and willing to help. Destination Easy Street, Cashville WeCONessee. So, what have you got to lose? Step right up, folks! And don’t worry your pretty heads about where the money comes from. It’s free! It’s the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Everybody wins! Except the evil fossil fuel companies, of course, but they deserve it.
I’ve been having a problem with a wet basement, and my roof sprang a couple leaks this winter. Climate change! Cha-ching!
To paraphrase: If everyone is a victim, then nobody is a victim.
I guess they are just going to keep going with this until they get a favourable judgement. Once that happens and a precedent is set the feeding frenzy begins in earnest. If it isn’t fought with extreme prejudice and massive penalties applied for this kind of trivially stupid abuse of the legal system then these lunatics will eventually get what they want – the collapse of industrialisation and crash and burn of the economy.
The annual climate change that causes the snow to come and go is caused by the tilt of the Earth and our orbit around the sun. Mother Nature is the one responsible so Mother Nature is the party that should be sued and not the oil companies.
Where does Boulder and Boulder county have standing? They do not profit from winter weather. And the only ski area in San Miguel county is at Telluride.
I wonder how much money Boulder spends every year clearing snow from the roads.