Colorado Doubles Down on Failed “Nuisance” Climate Lawsuit Strategy

Colorado Snow
English: Denver, Colorado, December 20, 2006 – Plows work to keep street passable as a blizzard hits Denver with up to 28 inches of snow predicted. By Michael Rieger (This image is from the FEMA Photo Library.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The fact a similar climate lawsuit in California was tossed out doesn’t seem to matter to Colorado public officials intent on wasting taxpayer’s money.

Why Colorado thinks it has a chance to make oil companies pay for climate change

The most important climate change fights right now are in state courtrooms.
By Umair Irfan Updated Jul 5, 2018, 2:35pm EDT

Nine cities and counties in Colorado, California, Washington, and New York, as well as the state of Rhode Island, have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, with oil giants Exxon and BP among the defendants. The goal is to make the oil majors liable for the greenhouse gases produced from their products and the local damages of climate change: rising average temperatures, melting snowpack, extreme weather like rainstorms and drought, and higher seas.

In an era with a Congress weak on climate policy and an executive branch hostile to even acknowledging climate change, courts remain some of the few avenues left to hold industry accountable for greenhouse gas emissions.

But last week, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against the five largest investor-owned oil companies in the world. While that was a federal court case and the Colorado suits are in state court, it shows that some judges aren’t convinced and a tough legal fight lies ahead.

Like the lawsuits filed in California and Rhode Island, the cases in Colorado invoke public nuisance law. The idea is that greenhouse gas emissions and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas. The producers of this pollution are therefore liable for damages and losses.

The Colorado suits also invoke the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, since the plaintiffs claim Exxon and Suncor deployed deceptive trade practices. A key question, however, is the scope of such a claim. Here, the courts are divided. In California, one judge ruled that climate lawsuits should be heard in federal court. Another California judge kept lawsuits filed by cities in state court.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17519236/colorado-climate-change-lawsuit-exxon-suncor

I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado.

Imagine for a moment that the fight was over say a food additive which was discovered to be harmful to human health. Wouldn’t the first step be an injunction to stop the use of that food additive, pending outcome of the court case?

Why don’t greens insist on an immediate injunction against use of nuisance petroleum products they claim were sold due to misleading advertising, in cities and counties which are suing the oil companies?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
151 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 5, 2018 7:49 pm

They are paralleling the tobacco lawsuits, hoping for a major payout due to the peculiarity that prohibitions of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder have been ruled to not apply to civil suits. It was extortion disguised as a lawsuit, with the purpose being the payout, not changing the behavior of the defendants.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 6, 2018 3:10 am

Tobacco? I think Gov. Frickendoofus must be smoking something else.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2018 3:13 am

Oh dang spell checker! That should be Hickenlooper not Frickendoofus. How did that happen?

hunter
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2018 3:28 am

…..smoking something?….😉

eyesonu
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2018 3:35 am

lol 😉

Barbara
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 7, 2018 9:03 am

Sounds all right to me.

honest liberty
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2018 7:31 am

I’m telling you, I called Jared Fogley the subway guy. I’m calling Hickenlooper as well. just look at the guy!

Barbara
Reply to  honest liberty
July 10, 2018 6:26 pm

Could this be what you are referring to?

Colorado speakers and:
Climate Leadership Conference
2018 Conference Speakers

“The CLC features speakers from government and business who are shaping the carbon and energy agenda and developing best practices.”

List of 2018 speakers: including Colorado.
http://www.climateleadershipconference.org/speakers

Presented by C2ES and The Climate Registry

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
July 10, 2018 7:39 pm

Wikipedia: The Climate Registry, Est. 2007

“The Climate Registry (TCR) is a non-profit organization governed by U.S. states and Canadian provinces and territories.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Climate_Registry

Began in California in 2001.

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
July 11, 2018 9:06 am

UNFCCC

Search results: The Climate Registry, ~ 10 pages of topics.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=The%20Climate%20Registry

Pathway
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 7, 2018 1:04 pm

You mean Gov. Chickenpooper don’t you. That’s what all the west slope republicans can him.

Stu
Reply to  Pathway
July 11, 2018 12:59 pm

Eastern slope conservatives call him Governor Dickinpooper.

Stu
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 11, 2018 12:57 pm

His name is Governor Dickinpooper.

J Mac
July 5, 2018 7:52 pm

These lawsuits will continue throwing their ‘legal mud’ in varying forms at the courts until the corrupt SOBs find a way to get one suit to stick! Given the potential ‘rewards’ for a successful suit, the incentives to continue with these shakedown attempts are huge.

Ian W
Reply to  J Mac
July 6, 2018 8:45 am

Or until a real experiment is run to show for example that downwelling infrared cannot heat water that covers 75% of the Earth’s surface.
Feedback evaporation causing higher humidity does not raise temperature as due to enthalpy changes higher humidity air can hold more heat without rising in temperature. So although water is claimed to be a ‘green house gas’, by changing the enthalpy of the atmosphere it may even reduce its temperature while increasing its heat content.

A volume of air from a misty bayou in Louisiana at 100% humidity after an afternoon storm temperature 75F has twice the heat content of a similar volume of air in Death Valley at close to zero humidity at 100F.

Temperature is the incorrect metric for heat content which should be measured in kilojoules per kilogram.

So once a simple experiment is done Arrhenius’ ideas are disproven again and the politicians can try to find some other reason extracting money.

Mike MacKenzie
Reply to  Ian W
July 7, 2018 9:08 am

So what my mama told me growing up in Tennessee is really true. It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity.

Deplorable B Woodman
Reply to  J Mac
July 6, 2018 10:46 am

Or until there is real tort reform to make “loser pays”. The frivolous lawsuits would stop tout sweet.

Bryan A
Reply to  J Mac
July 6, 2018 12:21 pm

Just gotta get ONE into the Trump Appointed US Supreme Court

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  J Mac
July 8, 2018 6:43 pm

If a state wins, the companies should raise the price of their products for consumers in that state to pay the judgment over time.

Mike O
July 5, 2018 7:52 pm

The way to stop these lawsuits is to immediately stop selling the product until the case is settled.

hanelyp
Reply to  Mike O
July 5, 2018 10:48 pm

There’s an immediate financial impact to the oil company, but sometimes a quick victory is the best way to minimize overall cost.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  hanelyp
July 5, 2018 11:24 pm

hanlep. A victory for which side? The language seems to be deteriorating along with mores, education, knowledge and other ruined blocks of our civilization. The weather may not change much by 2100 but I fear we will be vocalizing in grunts and chirps.

Fredar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 6, 2018 7:45 am

That’s the exact same irrational fear of change (along with the typical leftist belief that everything must be going to worse) that the greens have. Language has always changed and always will. The only way to stop that is to stop interracting with other people.

NCCoder
Reply to  Fredar
July 6, 2018 8:10 am

I didn’t read the comment as a fear of change. I “get” that language will change, but I’ve found our actual vocabulary is shrinking a-la 1984. My fear is of the “dumbing down” aspect as opposed to the change.

Ernie76
Reply to  hanelyp
July 6, 2018 7:03 am

An alternative to the “stop selling the product” could be to increase the price of the product (2X? 4X? less? more?) in those areas/jurisdictions that are the plaintiffs’. Declare the reason to be “cost of defending against the lawsuits”. There is a short path for residents and voters to connect to dots. Defendants get immediate relief. Capitalism at work.
Other information to consider…The tobacco lawsuits and subsequent actions increased the prices for tobacco products significantly – but mostly driven by tax increases on the product. Some current estimates: Tax on cigarettes is approx 45% of the cost. Tax on gasoline varies widely by state, but is as much as 12% the cost of the product.
The government officials in these jurisdictions do not have the political backbone to take the action that they did in the tobacco area – increasing the taxes to “change behavior”.

honest liberty
Reply to  Ernie76
July 6, 2018 7:33 am

oh great, rich people voting to steal more of my money while they go home to the biggest homes in the best neighborhoods. wonderful.
let them keep pushing

MarkW
Reply to  honest liberty
July 6, 2018 3:31 pm

Is everything bad the fault of the rich?

Stu
Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2018 1:03 pm

Yes, and I accept full responsibility. (I wish.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ernie76
July 6, 2018 5:24 pm

“An alternative to the “stop selling the product” could be to increase the price of the product (2X? 4X? less? more?) in those areas/jurisdictions that are the plaintiffs’. Declare the reason to be “cost of defending against the lawsuits”.”

I like that idea. 🙂

Robert Lyman
Reply to  Ernie76
July 7, 2018 7:23 am

Ernie76, Be careful what you ask for. In Canada, where I live, governments are busily finding ways to increase carbon taxes on all fossil fuel use. The rates are relatively low now (in the range of $20 to $30 per tonne), but they will rise to $50 per tonne by 2022 and probably $100 per tonne or more by 2030. That will certainly raise the cost of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy services derived from them. Politicians claim that the reason for these new taxes is to “punish polluters” (i.e. people driving their cars and heating their homes), but the real reason has become obvious – the creation of an immense windfall in government revenues that can then spent on new program and subsidies to favoured groups. Coming to a neighbourhood near you (Forgive the Canadian spelling).

Stu
Reply to  Ernie76
July 11, 2018 1:02 pm

Nope. Ban the sale. Have the plaintiffs and their attorneys guard the pumps.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike O
July 6, 2018 3:31 am

Since this is a Colorado case, couldn’t any resident there sue to block the sale of oil products, pending the outcome of the case? It would at least expose the hypocrisy. No doubt they are judge shopping. With all the loons in the “57” state judiciaries and the federal courts, it’s essentially a certainty that one of them will find for the shakedown artists.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2018 9:12 am

Rich, I’m trying to do that. As soon as I get word as to whether it is a possibility, I’m moving forward. I have cash but will need to start a go fund me or something similar, most likely, once this gets going.
I doubt I’ll get a call back but my fiance and I are meeting with her best friend, who’s husband is a corporate lawyer and may be able to weigh in…
This is the action I can attempt now. Anyone interested in trying to join forces on this?

Trevor
Reply to  Honest liberty
July 7, 2018 11:39 am

Honest Liberty :
That is CUTE ! Asking someone named RICH to give you money !
Are you offering to “liberate him” from the unbearable burden of wealth ?
.
MarkW :
“Is everything bad the fault of the rich?.”
.
MOSTLY YES !………How else COULD they have got wealthy
UNLESS they stole it from the poor people ?
Can’t you just follow the logic ?
You MUST go where the money is !
I mean , burglars always ROB THE POOR don’t they !!???
.
Well…..Governments treat everybody equally ! They “rob” everybody !
It’s called TAX or DUTY or EXCISE ……….but it means YOU PAY !
They tax RICH people HEAVILY
and POOR people LIGHTLY or NOT AT ALL !
Which sounds OK until you realise that the definition of
RICH and POOR is as much a political concept as a financial one !
Basically NO ONE in America ( USA ) is POOR , except by comparison !
But , if you throw in a bit of envy and resentment you can make that
about 49% and you don’t have to guess who THEY will vote for !

THE COROLLARY IS :
“Is everything good the fault of the rich ?”
.
MOSTLY YES !………Someone HAS TO PAY FOR IT ALL !
And generally they do so , a lot by TAXATION
and a surprising amount by anonymous PHILANTHROPY !
Wouldn’t it be lovely IF everyone could be sufficiently intelligent and
industrious and healthy and motivated enough TO GET WEALTHY !
Then Governments wouldn’t have to take 50% of every RICH person’s
money in taxation to provide welfare for the other 49% !!!!!!!!
Well….they probably would still take it ….BUT the reason would have
to be different because IF everyone was wealthy there would be very
little need for WELFARE ……….so you’d have to INVENT a REASON !
And you’d call it “Catastrophic Global Warming” and you’d put in
“Anthropogenic” because then you can apportion BLAME and
if there is blame then imposition of a PENALTY seems to be both
“fair” and “reasonable”…….especially IF only the WEALTHY
have to pay it !
Which from the United Nations point of view means MOSTLY
members of the SUCCESSFUL WESTERN CIVILISATION COUNTRIES !
So…….well done America !! You win again !!

.

Reply to  Mike O
July 6, 2018 7:56 am

The only way to put a permanent end to these nuisance lawsuits is to fix the damn science. Their foundation is the broken science of the IPCC which claims an unsupportably large effect from CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, fixing the science means disbanding the IPCC and UNFCCC and getting rid of entrenched bureaucracies is far harder than pointing out the many errors in the broken science which occurs regularly in this forum.

LarryD
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 6, 2018 10:06 am

Discovery, and put the “experts” on the stand, under oath. The defendants should go after the broken science as part of their defense. Put the “experts” in the position of recanting their claims on the stand, or committing purgery.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
July 5, 2018 7:52 pm

Colorado. Well, remember, they were with her and were stronger together.

markl
July 5, 2018 7:54 pm

The difference from the tobacco lawsuits is there are no damages that can be tied to the use of fossil fuels. When you think about it this whole “the climate did it” is a joke.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  markl
July 5, 2018 9:28 pm

Tobacco is essential for pipedreams, though. Heating, lighting and transport are not.

RayG
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
July 5, 2018 9:36 pm
honest liberty
Reply to  RayG
July 6, 2018 7:35 am

it isn’t entertaining when you work downtown and have to avoid interaction with these mongrels on EVERY CORNER! feces, vomit, urine, trash, piles of human garbage on nearly every city block in an otherwise gloriously beautiful city (and I hate cities)

its not funny, it is a travesty and Gov. Chickenscooper is responsible for not enforcing the panhandling laws, because…feelz.
these animals vote for other animals who then encourage and provided entitlements to what amounts to animals (seriously, look at the way they live). it is so foul

Rich Davis
Reply to  honest liberty
July 6, 2018 1:44 pm

Hickenlooper is a tough name for spellcheckers I guess. Looks like your computer/phone also had trouble with it. 🙂

hunter
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
July 6, 2018 3:31 am

No, pot is essential for pipedreams.
Tge correlation between pot being acceptable and the magical demon haunted thinking of climate extremism is interesting to consider.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  markl
July 6, 2018 4:17 am

Markl – July 5, 2018 7:54 pm

The difference from the tobacco lawsuits is there are no damages that can be tied to the use of………………..

Law suits claiming the burning of fossil fuels causing sickness and death are similar “cash cows” as was the law suits claiming the burning of tobacco (cigarette smoke) causing sickness and death.

Two peas in a pod, for the explicit purpose of extorting scads of money from the clueless public.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Sam C Cogar
July 6, 2018 7:53 am

It would be instructive to find out what percentage of the extortion payments are actually going to anti-tobacco education and medical care for the afflicted, vs just getting dumped into the general treasury.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2018 4:10 am

The State of WV used/uses “tobacco settlement monies” and tobacco sales tax monies, ….. which was supposed to be used to pay for “smoking related” medical costs, …… to pay State employee’s salaries and to pay for the treatment programs of “illegal drug” users, as well as the medical costs of said users of “illegal drug”.

Both federal and state governments can “tax” the sale of tobacco products …… but they can’t “tax” the sale of illegal drugs.

Joel O’Bryan
July 5, 2018 7:56 pm

The general public is on to the Climate Hustle.
Every municipality and state that tries to claim some kind of grievous future damage due to climate change will have its bond issuance prospectus examined for conflicting statements. Those contradictions will expose the lie that is alarmist climate change… a non-problem.
Colorado can’t be worried about SLR. So what is it worried about? Snow. For water and for skiing.

The problem is some of the bestColorado skiing ever was in winter of 2016-17.
Their lies will be easily parried in court. They are hoping for a settlement.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 5, 2018 8:33 pm

I’ve been skiing in Colorado for over 35 years and 2017/2018 season was not as bad as they say, although I tend to ski in the central mountains and not the SW.

Reply to  R. Shearer
July 6, 2018 8:17 am

I’ve been skiing the Sierra’s for about the same amount of time, including at least once a month during the summer for about 15 years. In fact, I’m on my way out to hike up and ski some North facing snow patches along the PCT this weekend.

The only climate related things I’ve noticed is that during the last couple of winters, we’ve seen more cold, dry storms and less of the Sierra Cement we’re famous for. During the summer, I’m skiing the same pitches later into the season than I was able to ski just 10 years ago after similar winter snow conditions.

You would think that as an avid skier (100+ days per year), global warming would be a big concern for me. Fortunately, I know better and don’t obsess about what the laws of physics precludes.

Honest liberty
Reply to  R. Shearer
July 6, 2018 10:09 am

I noticed up in Arvada the Rockies are dried up already, but it’s July. The past few years were decent. I was just down at deweese reservoir and it was down about 10 feet.
I know the snowpack wasn’t that great this year. I’ll be concerned when it’s decades long, which I don’t foresee

RHS
Reply to  Honest liberty
July 6, 2018 11:22 am

I can look out my window here in Lakewood and see about the level of snow I expect in the foothills for July. While not plenty, it isn’t completely gone either.

R. Shearer
July 5, 2018 8:05 pm

Eating inevitably leads to cell metabolism and aging. Should farmers and grocers be sued for this nuisance?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  R. Shearer
July 5, 2018 8:53 pm

Yes, R. Shearer. According to scientific studies, one of the most effective ways that we are currently aware of to extend life is to restrict caloric intake. It’s a public nuisance that hastens death when housewives and restaurant chefs entice us to overeat their good-smelling dishes!

Edith Wenzel
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 5, 2018 9:36 pm

I assume you are kidding. If not then perhaps you need to take your philosophy to another planet. This craziness has to stop.

Sean
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 4:28 am

Ever hear of a soda tax? When people’s health doesn’t improve As the cost of soda rises, they’ll move up the food chain.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Sean
July 6, 2018 7:32 am

They should begin by taxing stupidity. It cannot be legislated nor it seems eradicated.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  rocketscientist
July 6, 2018 12:05 pm

Human stupidity was the one thing that Einstein was convinced is infinite. He wasn’t as sure about the universe.

Jtom
Reply to  Sean
July 6, 2018 6:50 pm

I am waiting for a one cent per calorie tax on every food item and beverage. That’s where this absurdity is going if left unchallenged.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 12:04 pm

Obviously this is sarcasm. But it makes a good point. It’s too bad you couldn’t see that.

jorgekafkazar
July 5, 2018 8:17 pm

“Why don’t greens insist on an immediate injunction against use of nuisance petroleum products they claim were sold due to misleading advertising, in cities and counties which are suing the oil companies?”

Because they’re insane, but they’re not THAT insane.

Edith Wenzel
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
July 5, 2018 9:39 pm

How about them turning in their cell phones, computers, vehicles, running shoes, tennis rackets. Not to mention skipping that heart valve replacement, or any surgery for that matter and the list of life saving items goes on. All of these products are dependent on fossil fuel in one way another and many in more than one way. Deprivation is usually a great way to correct bad assumptions and end crazy discussions.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 5:57 am

Maybe there should be a one-day boycott by the oil companies on SELLING any petroleum products. The producers would certainly create a much greater nuisance (er…chaos) by not selling than they ever could by selling. Methinks the public would quickly tell their elected officials to grab a brain and stop these insane lawsuits.

OweninGA
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
July 6, 2018 6:12 am

They can’t do that because they would have to coordinate the boycott to be effective. That would put them afoul of the conspiracy laws and much worse legal jeopardy. Activist groups can organize, but when businesses do it, it becomes an “illegal cartel” and the feds get very interested.

Jtom
Reply to  OweninGA
July 6, 2018 6:54 pm

If they called it a “global climate awareness day,” no one would be in position to argue. It wouldn’t be their fault if people came away more aware of life without oil.

Bryan A
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
July 6, 2018 12:25 pm

As most cars and drivers can go a day or even a week without the need to fill up, most drivers would simply fill up the day before the planned no sale day. To make the plan work it would need to be a month.

BobM
Reply to  Bryan A
July 7, 2018 5:57 pm

Yes, and it doesn’t have to be “global” awareness. How about “Colorado climate awareness month”? No fossil fuels or fossil fueled electricity for a month…

That should be enough time to give Coloradans enough “awareness” of the “evils” of fossil fuel to encourage their politicians to continue or not.

czechlist
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 10:46 am

I have often suggested that anyone, anywhere observe their immediate environment and inventory everything in sight which required petroleum products to manufacture, market transport or moderate their environment and which of those items are they willing to permanently live without.
I also ask them to identify all of the items which were not invented by the second worse thing in the world – the white man.

John in Oz
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
July 6, 2018 2:59 pm

I’d like to see the public’s reaction to a green group picketing a gas station and stopping workers from filling up.

July 5, 2018 8:37 pm

In an era with a Congress weak on climate policy and an executive branch hostile to even acknowledging climate change, courts remain some of the few avenues left to hold industry accountable for greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate policy” ? — as if everyone SHOULD automatically accept that there is a NEED for any such policy. The need for such a policy has no rational foundation, and so the assumption that we should accept that there is a need is irrational too.

“hostile to even acknowledging climate change” ? — exactly what definition of “climate change” are we to assume here? — I get the feeling that the only climate change referred to is that which is FALSELY attributed to humans. A personalized redefinition of the word is put forth, with an unspoken assumption that EVERYBODY should accept this retarded redefinition.

“courts remain some of the few remaining avenues left to hold industry accountable …”? — and what previously existing avenues were there before courts? When the courts wise up, they will NO LONGER be avenues either. As is, they STILL are NOT viable avenues, since the same absurd reasoning is now being focused upon them, and they just have not oriented themselves properly yet to establish how absurd the claims are.

If ever there were a false, fatuous, fruitcake statement, then this is it.

Oh my God, it gets worse !

The idea is that greenhouse gas emissions and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas.

And how exactly does the general public use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas ? — They HEAT their homes and AIR CONDITION their homes with fossil-fuel energy ! They transport themselves using vehicles dependent of fossil-fuel energy ! They eat, drink, wear cloths, use appliances, entertain themselves, all using fossil-fuel-derived energy ! Without the substances over which the suits are being drawn up, the alleged uses being interfered with would NOT EVEN EXIST !

Absurd times ten. At least.

LarryD
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
July 6, 2018 10:11 am

Remember, for a lot of people, environmentalism is a religion.

Lee Kington
Editor
July 5, 2018 8:43 pm

I concur. States can be very powerful. If they feel oil is the problem then they can, within their state, ban all sales of petroleum , products derived from petroleum, and all product where petroleum is used in the manufacturing process.

While they are at it…… they should ban anything carbon based.

Reply to  Lee Kington
July 5, 2018 8:53 pm

But this would interfere with how the general public uses their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas. See how stupid it is ? (^_^) To do that which is claimed causes the very problem claimed. Banning the products would cause a worse nuisance. It just doesn’t get any more absurd.

RayG
Reply to  Lee Kington
July 5, 2018 9:39 pm

Since we humans are a carbon-based life form, we should immediately ban all humans. Of course this must be phased in so let’s start with the Greens and our various legislators first.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Lee Kington
July 5, 2018 11:29 pm

Then submit to the voters!

sophocles
Reply to  Lee Kington
July 6, 2018 1:10 am

… and maybe the oil companies so charged should place Colerado under a supply ban and refuse to transport, supply and sell any of their product to and in Colerado.

Is there a law which requires them to market product to and in Colorado?
If there isn’t, then the biter can be bit.

Bryan A
Reply to  sophocles
July 6, 2018 12:32 pm

You would need to show up the day before with Empty Tankers and pump the stations stored Gas out of the ground Tanks before the Gas-Out could commence otherwise the people would steal the gas from the tanks in the ground.

hunter
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2018 3:35 am

Never thought I woukd findva reason to agree with ATTP.
Wow.

Hugs
Reply to  hunter
July 7, 2018 12:19 pm

ATTP where? SoD is very sensible in my opinion.

July 5, 2018 8:58 pm

One causative effect of CO2 has certainly been established now with great certainty — as CO2 ppm increases, human stupidity increases. Shall I do a graph ?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
July 5, 2018 9:08 pm

Believing in a religion makes you dumber.

[???? .mod]

J Mac
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 5, 2018 9:35 pm

No. But being a bigot just might…..

Gary Pearse
Reply to  J Mac
July 5, 2018 11:32 pm

Except he didnt mean mussulman so he’s not all bad.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 12:40 am

I have actually come to this conclusion after speaking to many people that have a faith. It screws up their logic because they have to relate that faith to the real world. It thus affects the way they see the real world. It also affects their thinking processes. If you brought up a child and purposefuly inculcated/educated him/her with with logical inconsistencies in every subject, the chances are that their reasoning and logic as an adult would be very screwed up indeed. The faith of climate change/global warming has infected all of science and the whole world. It makes people say and do stupid things and everything seems to be getting more bizarre with each passing day. All of science is being infected as well as a lot of human brains. I dont have any clear evidence of a faith making you dumber but I would like to see scientific tests carried out on this. If I am proven wrong with a double blind study over a number of years with children growing up to become adults, then I will be happy to admit I am wrong.

MSO
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 6:54 am

“It screws up their logic because they have to relate that faith to the real world.”

Whereas deriving faith from experiences in the real world causes no conflict, is not really a religion and ergo, is not faith.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 6:59 am

Insane people are always convinced that it’s the other guy who isn’t seeing things correctly.

BTW, it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe there is one.
So you are insulting yourself as well.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2018 12:30 pm

‘believe there is no God as to believe there is one’

I believe you have mistaken. It takes no faith at all. Trust me. Remove all faith, and observe.

See alt.religion.* for some settled science. /sarc

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 8:03 am

Well, I guess someone forgot to tell Sir Isaac Newton and Fr. Georges Lemaître about that. Obviously you’ve never had a Catholic education (in either sense of the word) or you wouldn’t embarrass yourself making ridiculous pronouncements as to the pedagogical methods employed.

MarkW
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 6, 2018 9:16 am

One thing I’ve noticed is that people have a tendency to see whatever they want to see.
If you need to believe that believers are less intelligent than you are, you are going to notice every mistake a believer makes as confirmation of what you already believe.
On the other hand, mistakes made by atheist/agnostics is just a mistake and doesn’t mean anything in particular.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 12:35 pm

You mean like Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?

Jtom
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 6, 2018 7:07 pm

Religion was/is required to form a community willing to obey authority, or even to create the concept of authority. Every past civilization was centered around a religion. Without it, there would be no concept of morality, right, or wrong. There would only be the law of the jungle: you can possess that which you can successfully take from another. No religion means no civilization.

“If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.” Voltaire

Hugs
Reply to  Jtom
July 7, 2018 12:33 pm

Religion != a god;

July 5, 2018 9:01 pm

“public nuisance law. The idea is that [somethings] and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes”

Hey I wish someone could find a lawyer who would file a class action public nuisance law suit against all the telemarketers who target elderly people who have their own homes. These bleeps are certainly interfering with how we can use our phones. Or a suit against the phone companies who are enabling those bleeps.

Rob
July 5, 2018 9:30 pm

Shut the fuel off to these scumbags that are running a shakedown racket. That will put an end to it.

Edith Wenzel
July 5, 2018 9:33 pm

It is so ridiculous it is hard to join the conversation. Colorado has no proof of this, because there is no proof of fossil fuel causing greenhouse gases or causing climate change. There is no discussion possible with ignorance.

Tim
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 5, 2018 10:49 pm

I love the smell of desperation in the morning …

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 12:45 am

Relax Edith, Colorado will find that the case will be thrown out of court as in California. However this time all court costs and defendant costs should be paid by the plaintiffs.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Edith Wenzel
July 6, 2018 5:42 pm

Yes, the Colorado alarmists are suing for damages, but there are no damages to be seen.

Case Dismissed!

dodgy geezer
July 5, 2018 9:39 pm

…I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado….

If something is a ‘public nuisance’ then surely the point at which it becomes the nuisance is the point to address?

Many things are capable of being misused to the detriment of society. However, people don’t stop making them – they control their use. Look at guns, which are seen in Europe as especially dangerous. But even the Europeans don’t stop MAKING guns – they just place tight restrictions on the possession and use of them. They don’t fine the gun manufactures for misuse – they go after the mis-users.

If fuel is really seen as a danger similar to weapons, I would expect activists to be calling for tight control and rationing of it.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  dodgy geezer
July 6, 2018 8:23 am

@dodgy geezer
“They don’t fine the gun manufactures for misuse – they go after the mis-users.”

As opposed to the US, which takes the opposite approach.

ADS
July 5, 2018 9:54 pm

Why don’t oil companies cut back on deliveries to those places?

davidmhoffer
July 5, 2018 10:27 pm

Dateline Jan 6, 2020 – in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favour of 62 class actions suits against the largest oil, gas and coal companies in the country, awarding them a collective $64 Trillion in damages, and seizing all assets of the defendants including bank accounts, equipment and inventory, effectively shutting them down.

Dateline Jan 7, 2020 – reports from across the country indicate 18 million people froze to death in the last 24 hours.

Dateline Jan 9, 2020 – grocery stores across the nation have run out of food, and rioting has broken out in all major cities.

Dateline Jan 12, 2020 – the president of Mexico has announced that he simply will not tolerate the refugees coming across his northern border. “These aren’t therir nice people,” he said, “the nice ones all died already, its the really bad ones who are left. I vow to build a wall to protect Mexico and I will make the Americans pay for it.”

Dateline Jan 13, 2020 – the Prime Minister of Canada announced that he will be building a wall also. “Ours will be higher than Mexico’s” he vowed.

Dateline Jan 19, 2020 – Cuba announces that all refugees who manage to swim to Cuba will be returned to Florida. “We know there’s no air conditioning there anymore, and the food has all gone bad, and we feel badly for those people, but if we let them in, it will destroy our country, we just don’t have enough to go around.”

Dateline Jan 30, 2020 – Syria follows the EU, Iran, Haiti and Pakistan in barring American refugees from their countries. “We can set up refugee camps on our borders” said the President of Syria, “But we don’t have the resources to feed them, I don’t know what will become of them.”

Dateline Feb 2, 2020 – SCOTUS reverses their decision of Jan 6. “We’ve reconsidered the facts on hand,” they said in a joint statement, “we may have f*cked this one up.”

hanelyp
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 5, 2018 11:01 pm

That first event will never happen with the Trump Court.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  hanelyp
July 5, 2018 11:32 pm

Perhaps you should google the definition of satire…

Reply to  hanelyp
July 6, 2018 12:07 am

the EU still exists?? remarkable, I guess their re-education and special camps must have finally worked .

July 5, 2018 10:27 pm

It is about time someone like the GWPF sued the IPCC and other Green and left organisations for the damages caused by misleading propaganda, inappropriate energy policy and cruel and unusual stress caused by fear of imaginary climate change.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 6, 2018 12:52 am

I agree. Let us have a court fight. Global warming on trial. I have been looking for global warming and CAGW for 40 years and havent found it yet. The latest from UAH satellite data( the only temperature data set that everyone trusts ) gives at most a trend of 1.3C in 100 years and that trend in all probability will go down. Even if it doesnt; is a 1C increase for 100 years scaring anybody? NOT ME.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 6, 2018 8:30 am

While this sounds appealing, the courts don’t honor the scientific method making the result of such a lawsuit up to a jury which tends to favor emotional arguments over logical ones, especially when the jury pool is full of snowflakes.

Gary Pearse
July 5, 2018 11:10 pm

The legal world has gone crazy. Laws at a minimum should not violate logic. The supplier of gasoline doesnt order you to burn it. You knowingly purchase it. You willfully burn it.

I and possibly a few others became a test case for a bylaw of the British Columbia Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists that was challenged on discrimination and human rights grounds by a member. The bylaw concerns making a practicing member a life member and waiving annual dues after a certain number of decades of honourable practice after age 70. The complainant (clearly a SJW which I thought engineers were above all this nonsense) said it discriminated on the basis of age. The offer of life membership was withdrawn.

I wrote to the president and pointed out that there was no discrimination on aging. That no one was interfering with any member reaching a ripe age or practicing honorably. And I had no choice in how many years ticked by. I listed all the perks, discounts on rail fares buses, admissions to museums, pensions (which are age dependent). I noted seats on the subway that were to be surrendered to a senior, those with an infirmity, pregnant women, etc….. all to no avail. People didnt seem to see aging itself as a perk until now!

Warren
July 5, 2018 11:11 pm

Dreamers.
50% of oil & gas comes from the big-8:
Aramco 14%
Gazprom 8.5%.
Nat Iranian 8.5%
Qatar Pet 5%
Rosneft 5%
Abu Dhabi Nat 5%
Petrochina 5%
ExxonMobil 4%
Only one of the Colorado case defendants barely make it into the big-8.
Dumbanddumberass Liberals being bled up the garden path by Liberal lawyers.
You can’t make this stuff up . . .

SMC
Reply to  Warren
July 6, 2018 4:59 am

All but one of those is a state owned oil company.

Ray Boorman
July 5, 2018 11:59 pm

Eric, you pose a very good question, one exposing the hypocracy of these people, & their downright hostility to the right of citizens to continue enjoying the lifestyles which have resulted from the endeavours of humanity.

July 6, 2018 12:20 am

Behind everyone one of these are lawyers making money. It really does not matter to them whether their clients win or lose – they always win.

Clearly lawyers have recognised that global warming is a gold mine fit for exploiting. And like all lawyers they will be as willing to take cases against government for failing to act, as they will be to take action against University like Penn state for misleading hockeysticks. And of the two the easier case is against misleading hockeysticks.

Kramer
Reply to  Mike Haseler
July 6, 2018 8:15 am

“Clearly lawyers have recognised that global warming is a gold mine fit for exploiting. ”

Wonder if we’ll read about people in public lawfully harassing these lawyers like what we see with trump officials?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Kramer
July 6, 2018 12:20 pm

Not a chance.

J Mac
Reply to  Mike Haseler
July 6, 2018 1:29 pm

“Support a Lawyer… Take him to Court!”

michel
July 6, 2018 12:28 am

Why don’t greens insist on an immediate injunction against use of nuisance petroleum products they claim were sold due to misleading advertising, in cities and counties which are suing the oil companies?

Its a good question, to be asked seriously.

The reason to take it seriously is that the common law of nuisance only appears to allow for damages that have actually occurred. The remedy for future damages is an injunction to cease and desist.

However, the injunction is a temporary stay, and it can be overturned in later proceedings. If this happens, the applicant then becomes responsible for damages due to its imposition. The greens are not that crazy to risk that.

The second reason is that the injunction would have to cover not just sale and use in Colorado but in the whole world.

Again, they are not crazy enough to try for that.

So they are left with the incoherent position that Exxon et al are fine to carry on destroying civilization, as long as they pay a tax for the privilege.

honest liberty
Reply to  michel
July 6, 2018 8:15 am

Already on it. I’m contacting local environmental attornees to see whether any will take my case to request an injunction, and whether I can even do it. I live in Arvada and work in Denver. I’m fed up with Boulder.

Anyone who wants to maybe go in on this please send me a pm on my wordpress account and I’ll provide my personal email.

DaveS
July 6, 2018 12:55 am

“I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado.”

Yes, this is the funny thing. If fossil fuels are so damaging, then the Colorado officials will be able to demonstrate to the court their long history in avoiding use of them themselves and preventing or minimising use by others to the limit of their jurisdiction. If they can’t demonstrate that, then by their own demonization of fossil fuels, haven’t they been negligent? Maybe someone ought to sue them…

dennisambler
July 6, 2018 2:24 am

If oil company products are so lethal, why do these authorities continue to allow their use. If the consequences are as they say, are they not liable themselves?

Davis
Reply to  dennisambler
July 6, 2018 6:41 pm

Especially since they get tax revenue from fossil fuels, they are complicit.

hunter
July 6, 2018 3:27 am

Looking for rational, consistent, ethical behavior in the climate extremist world is fruitless.

Coeur de Lion
July 6, 2018 4:16 am

Isn’t it time the oil companies started to argue the science? Get some Nobel prizewinners into court? Walkover

richard verney
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 6, 2018 4:30 am

That may be rather difficult, since I understood that the Defendants in the Californian action conceded that climate change is real, manmade and causing sea level rise.

If they made that concession, it will be very difficult for them to backtrack on that unless there is some fundamental new discovery.

kent beuchert
Reply to  richard verney
July 6, 2018 5:48 am

Conceding some effect is not conceding dangerous effect. No one would deny that
fossil fuel use has had NO effect on lobal temperatures. And the use of those fossil fuels was demanded by our govt and all govts. They would probably have sued the oil companies if they did not supply.

MarkW
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 6, 2018 9:22 am

Of course if there’s a spelling error, that will prove that the science is bad.

Bruce Cobb
July 6, 2018 4:26 am

These vultures and scallywags have no shame. Their actions are driven purely by greed, under the guise of helping “save the planet”, at the expense of taxpayers, and ultimately everyone, if successful, since it would force oil prices up. Also, there would be a bandwagon effect, with essentially everyone trying to get in on the sc@m. Disgusting.

Sara
July 6, 2018 4:51 am

“The idea is that greenhouse gas emissions and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas. The producers of this pollution are therefore liable for damages and losses.”

Note: ‘the idea is that….’ Not ‘the FACT is that’, but the ‘idea is that’.

This is a scam being sent through the courts and nothing else. It should be thrown out immediately at the preliminary hearing, based on the CA suit which was dismissed. This one should be dismissed with prejudice as a nuisance, or even as frivolous litigation. “with prejudice” means can’t bring it again, can’t appeal it.

It is a scam to get money out of Big Oil and nothing else. And none of the money will benefit anyone except the attorneys involved, so their clients should pay all expenses when they lose — ALL expenses, including the targets of the lawsuit.

TDBraun
July 6, 2018 6:46 am

DENVER (AP) — (Near Future) — Today 37 oil companies and gasoline distributors made this joint announcement at a press conference:
“In view of the State of Colorado’s lawsuit against us claiming our product is a serious public nuisance, today we have decided, on the advice of our legal council, that we should cease all sales of gasoline in the state of Colorado until such time as the court has determined whether or not this product is indeed a destructive public problem. We do this for the safety of all Coloradans!”

A spokesman for the group added, “They claim gasoline is both “melting the snowpack” and “causing more extreme weather like blizzards, rainstorms, and droughts. Since their claims are contradictory, we are not sure how to defend ourselves against these false charges. So our legal team advised us to shut down sales here until the issue is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience that might occur. Please direct all complaints to the District Attorney’s office.”

In reply, a spokesman for the law firm in charge of the lawsuit, Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, said, “We will file for an injunction on the oil companies against this action immediately, on the grounds our lawyers will not be able to travel to court every day from their homes in the distant suburbs.”

K. Kilty
July 6, 2018 7:40 am

Colorado is a beautiful place rapidly evolving into Stupidsville. What the politicians want is new sources of revenue, because they have just about exhausted the capacity of their own residents and visitors to pay more. Shareholders of international companies are a convenient target. Voters in Colorado are much younger than the national average, and thus in the thrall of various cults impervious to facts, or to reason that involves examining consequences of policies that sound good on first reading. The confluence of interests of these two groups presents a challenge to rationality.

excopat
Reply to  K. Kilty
July 6, 2018 7:10 pm

When they replaced the sawmill on South College with a ToysRUs is about when Colorado ceased to be a desirable place to live. It has grown exponentially worse since. I’m retiring in Utah, hopefully soon.

rocketscientist
July 6, 2018 7:43 am

It’s about time a clever writer penned an essay along the lines of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” regarding cessation of fossil fuel use.
One could include all sorts of means for doing without, such as hand pumps and out-houses. Of course heating will become an issue as everyone fires up their wood burning stoves and temperature inversions hold the smog close.

Who will the lawyers sue then? The guy who let trees grow on his lot?

Davis
Reply to  rocketscientist
July 6, 2018 6:36 pm

Society wouldn’t make it until hand pumps and outhouses, society would collapse like a black hole on itself about two days after the absolute last delivery truck stopped at the grocery store.

If society survived, everyday would be a “Little House on the Prairie” episode, without the joy and happiness though.

Kenji
July 6, 2018 8:01 am

Agreed. Give the Lawfare-eco frauds what they want … cease all sales of the evil, offending. product. Respect Gaia … keep all oil in the ground. All of it. Voluntarily, and on “Big Oil’s” own terms.

And then … just watch the lawsuits FORCING all those “nasty” Oil companies to start producing again. I predict, it would take less than one week without oil before the American people would want the eco-frauds publicly hanged.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Kenji
July 6, 2018 12:27 pm

More than likely they would be clamoring (and rioting) for the government to take over “Big Oil” in order to get the fuel flowing again. And then they would demand that the oil execs be hung, because that’s who the media would blame.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Paul Penrose
July 7, 2018 8:19 am

Paul: And fuel would become at least ten times more expensive.

Kramer
July 6, 2018 8:03 am

“The fact a similar climate lawsuit in California was tossed out doesn’t seem to matter to Colorado public officials intent on wasting taxpayer’s money.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if what we have seen so far is just the tip of the ice berg.

Wharfplank
July 6, 2018 8:58 am

We all know judges set energy policy, just as judge munez in Cali sets federal immigration law. Lawfare.

Snarling Dolphin
July 6, 2018 9:05 am

IMO THE most stellar thing Scott Pruitt did was put an end to EPA sanctioned sue and settle. I’m starting a go fund me site for a statue of Scott’s majestic presence (the inscription will be: Best – EPA – Administrator – evah!) to be placed on the 16th St. mall outside of the Region 8 EPA office. It’ll be big enough to provide some nice shelter for the homeless stoned vagrants infesting the area. A win win!

Honest liberty
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
July 6, 2018 10:17 am

In Denver? Good luck

Wiliam Haas
July 6, 2018 9:41 am

The government entities bringing the legal actions have made no effort to make the use of fossil fuels and or goods and services that make use of fossil fuels, illegal in their jurisdictions. The snow plow in the photo is being powered with fossil fuels. The manufacture and delivery of that snow plow involved the use of fossil fuels.

There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

Art
July 6, 2018 10:13 am

I would think the defense should ask the plaintiffs (the cities and counties in Colorado, California, Washington, and New York, as well as the state of Rhode Island) to reveal how much of that destructive product they use, and then request a dismissal based on the fact that they are complicit.

wws
July 6, 2018 10:59 am

In actual legal fact, there is no chance of any of these lawsuits remaining in any State Court, no matter what some lower level Judge may rule. (he will be overturned on appeal) There is a legal concept known as Diversity Jurisdiction which guarantees that suits of this kind can be removed to a Federal Court, if the defendant asks for such a move.

So these cases will all be adjudicated in Federal Court, and all rulings (if not originally, then definitely upon appeal) will follow the legal reasoning laid out in Alsup’s decision.

July 6, 2018 1:08 pm

This whole thing reminds me of when somebody sits down at a restaurant, eats the food, pays for the food, and then, a day later, calls the restaurant to complain about how bad the food was. Could you not taste it THEN ? Why did you torture yourself and pay for torturing yourself and fail to say anything WHILE YOU WERE USING what you are now complaining about ?

Except in this case, the people complaining are STILL using what they are complaining about WHILE they continue to complain about it. They keep on paying to buy the benefits that the substances they complain about are providing.

I hate writing this sentence. I hate typing words. I loathe myself for placing my fingers on a keyboard. I won’t stop, but I think I will sue manufacturers of keyboards for the continued production of these products that cause me to hate myself.

Svend Ferdinandsen
July 6, 2018 2:11 pm

“I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado.”

And why do peoble continue to use these harmfull products, when they know the damage they make?
Sue the farmers because you got fat.

Davis
July 6, 2018 6:31 pm

What proof of alleged damage do they have to base their suits on? It is a beautiful, hot, cloudless day here today. If this is due to climate change, I will go idle my Silverado for a while, much too soon I will be back at -40 and snow.

Governments continue to sue, because it is NOT the politicians money to lose, it is the taxpayers. If the politicians actually had some skin in the game, they would be a bit more reluctant to pursue this. Things are different when you have a blank cheque to use and it’s not even your name on it.

David Chappell
July 6, 2018 8:41 pm

The first questions that the defendants should put to the plaintiffs are (1) do you use oil products in your official activities; (2) if so why, given the potential damage you are baseing your suit on; and (3) do you derive any tax revenues from the sale of oil products? Should the answer to (1) or (3) be “yes” then file for immediate dismissal of the case on the basis of the clean hands doctrine.

Hugs
Reply to  David Chappell
July 7, 2018 12:39 pm

The suit is political. It won’t fly, but the mere existence of it is a message which is the purpose.

Johann Wundersamer
July 8, 2018 8:46 am

Why don’t greens insist.

Because greens can’t believe they exist.

Sam Pyeatte
July 8, 2018 6:33 pm

These states should be required to ban all fossil fuels in their state for a year before they can file for imaginary damages.

John
July 9, 2018 4:27 am

The Californication of Colorado is complete. I mourn the loss of the state I grew up in.

%d bloggers like this: