Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Lawyer Sharon Y. Eubanks thinks the great legal weakness of Big Oil is their attempts to greenwash. She could have a point.
I led the US lawsuit against big tobacco for its harmful lies. Big oil is next
Sharon Y Eubanks
Tue 5 Jul 2022 21.00 AESTLast modified on Tue 5 Jul 2022 22.40 AEST
We may be approaching a legal tipping point for fossil fuel companies and the spin masters that work for them
In 2005, I was the lead counsel on behalf of the US in one of the biggest corporate accountability legal actions ever filed. That trial proved that the tobacco industry knew it was selling and marketing a harmful product, that it had funded denial of public health science, and had used deceptive advertising and PR to protect assets instead of protecting consumers.
Today, the fossil fuel industry finds itself in the same precarious legal position as the tobacco industry did in the late 1990s. The behaviour and goals of the tobacco and petroleum industries are pretty similar – and there are many similarities in their liabilities.
Both industries lied to the public and regulators about what they knew about the harms of their products. Both lied about when they knew it. And like the tobacco industry while I was in public service, the deceptive advertising and PR of the fossil fuel industry is now under intense legal scrutiny.
The most significant legal cases facing fossil fuel companies today focus on ongoing deceptive marketing in the form of “greenwashing”. This is different from green marketing – companies that have genuinely sustainable products are, and should remain, free to market them accurately. But the oil industry is not a sustainable business – on average, less than 1% of its capital expenditures goes into low carbon projects– and free speech laws do not stop corporations making false statements.
The oil and gas industry is now touting the promise of carbon capture and storage projects as a way to avoid reducing emissions. But not a single existing CCS project is viable, and no company is investing at a rate likely to make future ones viable. It’s an old bait-and-switch, as it mirrors how tobacco companies promoted various smokeless alternatives for decades.
…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/05/us-lawsuit-big-tobacco-big-oil-fossil-fuel-companies
Sharon in my opinion is right about the technical difficulties of carbon capture and storage. Any big oil company which touted carbon capture in their annual report or other legally regulated literature could be in trouble.
The problem with greenwashing is, lying to shareholders and customers can carry a financial penalty. If Sharon can establish Big Oil lied about or exaggerated the possibilities of carbon capture, and other shareholder report statements about their efforts to go green, she likely has them.
Imagine if from the start, instead of ducking and weaving, all the energy companies had had the balls to say, “if you don’t like our product, we’re happy to withdraw service with immediate effect?”.
There are a few companies whose CEOs have the guts to be honest and defend their product. For example, in 2021 Whitehaven Coal faced down regulators over the self evident statement by WhiteHaven’s CEO that coal would remain a major component of the energy mix for the foreseeable future. Such courage is unfortunately an industry rarity.
An honest person is a difficult target, even in a police state. But the moment people start ducking and weaving, trying to play the game, displaying their fear and weakness, as way too many energy CEOs appear to have done, their persecutors own them.
What if Sharon succeeds? What would we all do without Gasoline? What would she do without gasoline?
If you think actually destroying big oil, destroying the supply of oil, would be too insane to genuinely contemplate, think again. There is no rule that nations and peoples must always make rational choices. History is full of examples of nations which did the unthinkable, and self destructed, because the rulers or people embraced mass delusion or insanity.
Look at the Chinese Ming Dynasty, which after the great explorer Zheng He opened the sea lanes for Imperial China in the 14th century, bringing back fabulous wealth from his expeditions, decided to turn its back on prosperity and outside contact. Look at the Blues and Greens, sport hooligans who almost ripped the Eastern Roman Empire apart in the 6th century, when sport team rivalry became more important than civil order. Or for something more recent, look at what happened to Venezuela, when as a nation they decided they could do without private oil companies. Venezuela went from being one of the richest countries in South America to being a failed narco state in a single generation.
All nations are only a few key failures of judgement away from senseless ruin.
She’s an ambulance chaser.
Just a bigger ambulance.
Powered and lubricated by hydrocarbon fuels.
I’ve always felt that lawyers should be paid on an hourly basis only.
Getting a fraction of the judgement is too much incentive for corruption.
Many may be unaware of it, in part of her prepared written testimony for a 2019 “Fossil Fuel Industry Funds a Deception Campaign” U.S. House hearing, Sharon Eubanks made essentially the same assertions about a worthless, never-implemented leaked memo set notoriously known as “reposition global warming” that a core clique of enviro-activists have used for 25+ years to falsely accuse fossil fuel executives of colluding with skeptic climate scientists in disinformation campaigns. Additionally, she has very suspect ties to Naomi Oreskes, one of those activists who’s promulgated that same leaked memo set. I covered this specific situation in my Dec 2019 GelbspanFiles blog, please see “What Naomi Didn’t Say, Sharon & Sheldon Did.”
Assuming the U.S. House regains GOP control in November, they should turn the current Oversight Committee witch hunt hearings against fossil fuel execs 180° next year into legitimate hearings on the disinformation from enviro-activists. Ms Eubanks should be called as a witness, where she might fold like a cheap suit in revealing who fed her the garbage about the “reposition global warming” memos.
The biggest thing about that “memo”, was that there was nothing false in it.
Global Warming is and has always been at best, a theory. Labeling it as such is not false.
In only in the broadest technical sense would you be correct. The specific memo set, which includes a public relations suggested pair of target audiences, is used as a weapon against skeptic climate scientists under the direct accusation that they knew the science was settled, but were paid by fossil fuel executives to knowingly go against all they knew and to instead spew disinformation concocted within fossil fuel corporation boardrooms, of which all participants in the effort knew what they were saying were baldfaced lies. Al Gore compared the memo set’s directive to a sinister plan of the tobacco industry to plant doubt in the minds of the public. Since the memo set with its alternative name suggestions for the public relations campaign and the two targeted audiences was rejected outright by the group it was proposed to and never even solicited in the first place, cannot be used as evidence to prove the existence of industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns; thus in that sense, the accusation that skeptic scientists were directed to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” and paid to do so is absolutely, positively false. But worse for Gore and the rest of the core clique who promulgated it — if they knew that set was never used, but pushed the accusation with malice anyway, they may have committed one of the biggest acts of libel / slander in history.
Scientifically, it’s a hypothesis. It would need a lot more proven predictive ability to be considered a theory.
BIG SOLAR/WIND IS NEXT.
Without Big Oil we have no oil
Without Big Tobacco we have no tobacco
Without Big Government we have FREEDOM!!!
The difference to me is that tobacco has no real redeeming value whereas oil surely does!!
Has anyone told her what would disappear, be unavailable, cost 100 times as much, even the medicines and fertilizer that would be cost prohibitive, if we did not drill for oil?
Over 400 Oil Companies have gotten together to form an information dissemination website to convince the public the truth about climate change….
Oops, did I say “Oil Companies”….I meant “Media Companies”….
I think she is highly confused about who is doing “deceptive advertising and PR”
to convince the public the truth about climate change….
“the six Guardian language changes on climate matters
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”
5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”
6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”
This is in line with Greta’s handlers’ philosophy – watch any charity commercial…
“How is it possible for you to be so easily tricked by something so simple as a story, because you are tricked? Well, it all comes down to one core thing and that is emotional investment. The more emotionally invested you are in anything in your life, the less critical and the less objectively observant you become.” — David JP Phillips, We Don’t Have Time board of directors, “The Magical Science of Storytelling”
Feelings over facts, ultimate narcissism
I’d add to that list of twisted definitions her use of “sustainable”.
How is an industrial solar site or an industrial turbine sites with a 20 year expected lives and dependent on mining rare earth minerals more “sustainable” than extracting fossil fuels?
In particular given that said mining will ALSO require the continued use of fossil fuels!
Mr. slider: I agree, and narcissist is the right word. She’s a capable lawyer because she sees a weakness in the opponent based on a fact that won’t be disputed (they’ve been trying to kiss eco ass for years). But she is not doing this for the money- she thinks she is saving the planet. She thinks (here’s the narcissism diagnosis) that she knows better than we do. She should make our decisions because she is smarter than us. Any doubt about this?
That is the central conceit of liberalism in general.
They know, without a doubt in their minds, that they are the smartest people and that this proves they should be put in charge of everything.
Being so smart, they also know beyond a doubt that everyone who opposes them is pure evil and needs to be punished, if not destroyed altogether.
For the sake of the planet/children/whatever.
The content in the last link you supplied is the most depressing. This is a supreme example of self delusion driven by lashings of self righteousness.
There’s always more to these things: “Mark Hertsgaard is Back. Again. “Covering Climate Now.”
Could she be required to only use materials and energy produced by unreliables and the courts should also be required to use unreliable energy. She can only appear if she has walked to the court or travelled in an EV powered only and entirely by ubreliables. I reckon the whole thing will get thrown out of court fairly quickly.
thrown out of court fairly quickly? I don’t think the courts work like that. Like every other bureaucratic institution their primary objective is to stay in business.
They have more business than they know what to do with.
Which requires the hiring of more judges, which grows the size of the bureaucracy. Which is the other prime directive.
Unless of course, she dresses in animal furs she obtained through hunting with a bow and arrow that she made using stone tools.
Now, now you know perfectly well that she could harvest cotton (I hear it’s so hard you have use captive labor or they’ll run off) or ferment flax ( serfs, same), or glean fibers from the bushes various animals pass through (no herding sheep though, that’s not green). And then spinning thread, weaving cloth, all with those tools made with stone knives and axes. I’m sure she’ll have a fine linen suit in no time.
ooof! Now there is a mind picture I did not need.
There will always be Saudi Aramco, the biggest player in the market, and not US.
Make-up, hair, clothes, white teeth, jewellery…..
Walk the walk lady, stop using any and all products that require oil for their existence, transportation and distribution.
Add to the list, carbon black in the toner and ink she prints her legal documents with and reads from.
Not to mention the metals used in the printer’s circuit boards, the plastics it is made of, the electricity used to make it work (most of which is from fossil fuels), the list goes on.
I wonder what would happen if one or more of the major oil company CEO’s stood up and announced an immediate stoppage of production or delivery? Even a temporary stoppage; a week or a month.
If tobacco companies all stopped producing cigarettes simultaneously life would go on. If petroleum companies stopped producing oil and gas simultaneously life as we know it would stop within 2 days and never recover – the benefits of petroleum far outweigh the downsides which is what every alarmist overlooks. The smug attorney should be careful what she wishes for. She might be open to a class action.
Sorry, just read the comment below, my bad
They would get nationalized or otherwise put out of business in a heartbeat.
Even a dolt like Simon understands:
“Venezuela went from being one of the richest countries in South America to being a failed narco state in a single generation.“
But as Simon will tell you, if it hadn’t been for Chavez and Maduro, things would have been much worse.
Mention Trump, and watch the irrational rage index soar.
There is the dolt himself. Russia colluuuusion lives!
Diiiiirge…… The one trick pony does his pirouette. I bet you are looking forward to hearing what Trumps lawyer Cipollone has to say under oath? I know I am.
Simon: Let us know when you hear this testimony given behind closed doors. Here in the states, we’re not allowed to hear it. Liz can’t have some loose cannon go live to the nation, she will let you know what you can hear when she’s ready.
Liz the republican?
You are hilariously stupid. You even believed Russia Colluuuusion;)
Diiiirge….I can just see you clapping and barking like a seal, so happy with yourself that you remembered your one line.
Because you are so dumb to believe it I need to remind new readers. Unless Russia colluuuusion was fake news…nah you believe it was real. After all it was on the news 😉
Just the line “you are so dumb.” It’s like I’m dealing with a 5 year old. It truely is beyond comedy. You’re like the special needs kid who tells everyone who comes in to the class the “same joke” and is laughing before he gets the last line out. Russian collusion, ha ha ha.
But and it’s a big but, even if Trump didn’t collude with the Russians, there is no doubt they were on his team. They wanted him to win and worked for it. And…. anyway the collusion thing is so old now. Who cares. Trump has done so many other appalling things since then, it’s kind of irrelevant.
Mr. Simon: We can see who’s the big butt here. “Even if” you can’t admit that Hillary’s legal team couldn’t find collusion, it matters still because if you’re that wrong on one subject…….
The difference is, tobacco was all harm. Oil has done incalculable good for humanity and car manufacturers etc. have continually strived to make using it cleaner and more efficient.
How many billions of lives have been saved across the world by ICE Ambulances or Police cars?
How many lives have been improved by people burning natural gas in 80%+ efficient Natural Gas home boilers (furnace).
More to the point, oil is necessary. You can shut down tobacco, make it illegal, start a War on a Different Drug, and even if you could fully enforce it, life would go on.
No judge is going to shut down the oil industry. Any judge who did try to actually shut down fossil fuels as an existential threat would be blocked by an appeal almost instantly. Even if the recent 6-3 majority all died and the Supreme Court became a 9-0 woke majority, if they were crazy enough to order the oil industry shut down, all fuel deliveries shut down, all fossil fuel power generation shut down, the public would not put up with it, Congress would not put up with it, it simply cannot happen. I cannot think of a faster way to get the entire populace rioting.
They don’t have to order it shut down. They can just levy fines and penalties that are so high as to be unpayable.
As Hillary said when it was pointed out that regulations she was pushing would put many small businesses out of business:
“Am I responsible for every under funded company in the country?”
“Am I responsible for every under funded company in the country?”
In other words, only rich people and big corporations get to run businesses.
The legal profession is simply trying to extract money from those FF companies, not shut them down. Same for tobacco.
Whales are certainly grateful.
The west might self destruct, but I doubt legal action against oil companies will be the reason. Every legal action against oil companies has so far failed. She would have a much more compelling case going after Apple and dozens of companies using slave labour in China.
Pfizer has in essence asked to court to dismiss their whistleblower case because the government was aware of the fraud.
?? Details? Haven’t heard about that…
Deets please. Could be interesting
Better call Saul….
A simple description of Sharon Y Eubanks:
“Enemy of the people”
Gavin Menzies had an interesting take on this. He suggested that the Chinese fleet was destroyed by a Mega Tsunami from a comet impact in the Tasman Sea south of New Zealand.
Quite an extraordinary claim. The evidence I’ve seen is that Zheng He mostly focussed on Malaysia, maybe Indonesia, India, Arabia and East Africa. If he had followed the coast of New Guinea down to Australia, he would have found what to him would have seemed an empty land with very little trading potential. He did have the technology to make deep ocean crossings, astronomical charts and a compass, but he mostly seems to have stayed close to the coasts. Until the invention of highly accurate clocks, to help provide an accurate longitude, it was risky to go too far out of sight of land, even with the help of good instruments.
You are ignoring the mining potential of New Zealand.
New Zealand and Australia are both great mineral sources, Australia literally had rivers littered with gold. But it took the Aussie colonists several decades to find them. And the ancestors of the Mauris might have had the courage to reach New Zealand, but it wasn’t an easy course to navigate for people nervous of going out of sight of land.
Before you can trade for minerals, somebody has to mine for those minerals.
A trading vessel sailing past a coast has no way of knowing that there are mineral resources just a few miles away, unless someone is already mining these resources.
That’s accurate about Zheng He. He did return to China but the Yongle emperor of the Ming didn’t like the economics and preferred a controllable inwards looking realm. Hence scrapped the ships.
Gavin Menzies would fit in with the climate change crowd. He has a set hypothesis and throws out or distorts evidence until it ‘agrees’ with his pet theory. To say that his theories are bizarre would be an understatement of monumental proportions – Erich von Daniken is a rational, mainstream scientist by comparison to Menzies. The theories are unsupported and unsupportable – he makes claims that completely contradict known history, invents events wholesale for which there is zero evidence and attributes incidents to Chinese sailors which are attributable to other groups in history. In short he is a complete fantasist with the downside that his books aren’t even enjoyable fantasy. Zheng He’s ships were burned or left to rot in their docks in China – we do know that much, even if the exact reasons for deliberately turning their backs on the sea trade is unknown.
Who pays? We do. The lawyers get rich and the consumers pay
Could Big Oil not countersue claiming the allegations against them are spurious and only the parasitic lawyers would benefit?
Maybe we’ll get to see who’s lying now.
Another WUWT article title, “As Dumb as it Gets,” would apply well here. An intelligent lawyer should know that we do not need tobacco in our lives. However, without oil and all its benefits, we would be virtually forced back to the stone age . The tobacco industry lied for the sake of short term profits. The oil industry does not need to lie about the enormous benefits of oil and its derivatives, their reliability and the cost benefits. I suspect Sharon Y Eubanks is a disingenous lawyer who sees this as both a money making opportunity and ideological but not about human welfare.
Here in Aust, there is case law to punish those who use deliberate deception to damage the reputation of a business. One case had an actor insert a rat tail in a meat pie in a public restaurant that subsequently crashed. Rather different events, but people should be discouraged about badmouthing for reasons that are invented. Geoff S
The key is (finally) that oil companies will have to attack the pseudo science of AGW, as well as the ridiculous notion that the Little Ice Age was preferable to today’s much BETTER climate.
Every time the supposed “harm” is attempted to be entered into the record as a “fact” the objection, “facts not in evidence” needs to be raised.
This is NOT like tobacco. No “harm” can actually be shown, and to the contrary, mountains of BENEFITS can be shown.
Imagine a good lawyer doing precisely the same thing to “renewables” companies? Imagine the fraudulent statements that have been made?
And are still being made – the widely disseminated idea that all of certain power companies electricity customers are getting 100% green renewable electricity is perhaps one of the more common lies told.
And the outright falsehoods declarations knowingly made on many occasions from Fauci and his political cabal that their COVID “vaccines” prevented transmission and/or contraction of COVID.
In FDA submissions which were overseen by Fauci, both Pfizer and Moderna expressly disavowed such capabilities.
I can understand the lure suing the oil companies have. Billions of potential dollars.
But, while I understand there is no shortage of stupidity, I find it very hard to believe that a court would be able to ignore the other side of the equation.
The defense lawyer wouldn’t even have to work all that hard. All he’d have to do is point out that every person in the room only got there due to the fossil fuel industry.
I’m sure they drool at the thought of getting the other side’s witnesses on the stand and questioning them on how much they rely on the fossil fuel industry.
“How did you get here?”
“Did you ride a horse?”
“How do you heat your home?”
Our current civilization was built with fossil fuels. Without them it would not have been possible.
How many people would die if you shut the industry down?
but I suppose I’m biased. I can’t help but see the consequences despite how much disdain I have for Oil CEOs, and CEOs in general.
It’s like draining the California Reservoirs because a small rare fish is endangered, putting millions at risk due to water shortages.
Ooops, bad example.
The dissent in the recent SCOTUS case should allow you to “suspend disbelief”. In that instance the “narrative” trumped law and common sense.
There’s too many rats in the cage – they’re hungry and now eating each other,
It’s what rats do – locusts have better manners and only eat the landscape when they get hungry
Oh wait, we eat landscape, it’s what’s causing the so far observed ‘climate’ to change
Anyway, Big Oil is nothing, perfectly zilch.
Wait till we get the the ginormous beast that is Big Sugar – the growers, merchants, processers and sellers of Carbohydrate – grotesquely mislabelled as = ‘Food’
Wait till the lawyers get into:
Just for starters 88% of the US population have a recognised and diagnosed medical problem arising directly from their consumption of cooked starch.
How does that compare with the number of car owners/drivers
Ehrlich’s predication came true, the world is now full of hungry zombies and everything we know is wrong.
And you don’t get any more wrong than the legions of professinal liars ##, as illustrated in the photo at the top of this story
And sugar did it.
## Sugar eaters have vast number of things in common with alcoholics (i.e. ANYBODY who ever drinks any amount of alcohol on any sort of regular basis)
The most significant is, they are perpetual liars.
(you know them, you probably are one of them = the ones who say:
“Oh I could stop drinking tomorrow, just like that, no problem”
Yet they never do, do they?
And once you start passing porkies and seemingly get away with it, where do you stop?
Excuse me Mr Hanson, your theory seems to violate the 2nd Law, please explain how it doesn’t
This could be the best thing ever.
Imagine the discussion in the oil company board rooms.
They have either to go along with the hoax that carbon dioxide is frying the world and be prepared to pay out uncountable billions, destroying their businesses and thereby shareholder value.
Or, they have to say, “yep we lied, the global warming thing was a lie from start to finish, and we went along with it”.
At this point it global warming itself that goes on trial. With the world’s best sceptical scientists lined up the testify and, my guess is, the worlds worst scoundrels running for the hills.
and the defense team may actually get a shot at cross examining mike mann.
He’d probably be too chickenshit to show up as a “witness,” knowing somebody would actually get to (gasp!) “question” him.
His ego is far too large to allow himself to be made a fool of in a cross examination.
Every year, thousands die due to breathing in H2O, aka “water”, yet water companies continue to blithely push their product onto an unwary public. For far too long, the water industry has ignored the property damage from floods and deaths from drowning. This is a travesty we can no longer ignore. The water industry uses similar tactics as Big Tobacco, and must be made to pay, and we are coming after you, Big Water. See you in court, baby.
Sounds like a lawyer advertising herself as the next big money-grubbing scam artist.
However, there is a huge difference between tobacco and oil:
Tobacco was never regulated by the Feds, and all the lawsuits were filed in various state courts who collectively forced a settlement from the tobacco companies.
Oil, however, and specifically air emissions, are exclusively under the authority of the Federal government via the Preemption clause of the Constitution. CO2 cannot be contained within any state’s borders, while states have always regulated tobacco sales within their state borders.
Since SCOTUS has already determined that even the Federal EPA has no authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the claimed authority of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, then by obvious extension neither do the states. The existence of the1990 CAA preempts any state authority over claimed “pollutants” that cannot be fully contained within any state’s borders. States can and do regulate above and beyond CAA standards, but only on locally generated pollutants that generally stay within that area, such as smog.
Mr. Duane: Very good, most folks forget that plaintiff lawyers like this scroat were suing and losing to big tobacco for years, cases thrown out before trial, zero verdicts, a couple that made it to a verdict were reversed. It was a long, expensive slog until the plaintiff lawyers got state AGs to join in, based on medical costs for smokers. The tobacco folks had no choice but to fold at that point. This lady still thinks she’s the bestest sort of person, you can see her high self regard in her face.
This is nothing more than Don Quixote ’tilting at windmills’.
This is the National City Lines “victory” all over again.
Not really – there was actually a conspiracy to replace interurban railways and trolley systems with buses. The oil industry has not “conspired” to replace “alternatives” of which there are basically none.
No, the conspiracy was to monopolize the supply chain for everything from fuel to tires. Rail transit in places where NCL was operating actually lasted longer than rail transit elsewhere.
There never was such a conspiracy.
Rails and trolleys were replaced by buses because buses were better.
One highly successful Carbon Capture and Storage project is Dakota Gasification, part of Basin Electric, out of North Dakota. This project gasifies coal, produces syngas, and converts syngas to a number of products such as Synthetic Natural Gas, but now they produce ammonia as it is (or was until recently) a more valuable product than SNG.
CO2 from syngas production is scrubbed from the process as an integral part of the system and the CO2 is sent via pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.
– Dakota Gasification Company
This project has been operational for over 20 years proving that CCS with EOR is viable.
Oxy has also been using CO2 for EOR for years, as has Denbury Resources. So, none of this is new.
“Lie” is a legal term of art. But her strategy can eventually work in concert with other government intervention, public indoctrination and a lot of money. Good thing none of that is going on?
Oil is substantially more useful / indispensable than tobacco. But tell that to all the lower income people paying $7+ a pack in taxes to their governments. And that is the near-term future of petroleum users.
What? She ran out of the bucks she got for the tobacco lawsuit? Already? Damn, she sure is living high on the hog, if that is the case. I can’t imagine her not making a bundle off of that debacle.
To try and do the same to the fossil fuel industry is not going to end well for somebody. And, I suspect it will be the greenies who do a face plant when it cannot be proven that the fossil fuel industry has nothing to do with “climate” whatever. And, that CO2, which will try to be proven to be harmful to the planet and coming from the use of oil, etc., is actually beneficial and necessary to all living things on the earth. Just the discovery phase will be a hoot worthy of a 3 stooges skit. All that fake crap out there claiming to be evidence of something taking place which doesn’t exist in reality. Should be interesting. Maybe the oil industry will finally boycott selling their products to their enemies, including Ms. Eubanks and all of her team. I’d like to see that.
Why is this woman smiling? She is trying to put herself back into the 1700s.
And another tipping point? Really?
Q: “Mommy, how did we used to clean our clothes before beating them on rocks in the creek?”
A: “We put them in washing machines.”
And in a drought when the creek dries up, we just beat them against the rocks.
But the moment people start ducking and weaving, trying to play the game, displaying their fear and weakness
Amazing how difficult a concept this seems to be. Give a little, be prepared to give all.
Churchill’s description was the most apt – “Feeding the crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last.”
Pull her net connection , electricity meter water meter , disconnect her sewage lines and deny her the use of any fossil based commodity , ( spandex )
I reckon it’s time to have a real-life example of a modern community, say a town of 50k population, that has to live on wind & solar electricity only, and no oil- derived fuels or other products.
The project could be called “Lord Of The Flies 2.0”
Written like the lying despot she is. Normal people find fossil fuels useful, but our elitist overlords press ridiculous analogies in the name of their weather scam.
Witch trials with CAGW as the religion and Big Oil as the witches. This is what happens when science becomes subordinated to the ideology of the Left — when science is manipulated and made to serve the purposes of the Leftist ideologists.
Roe v. Wade is another example if it was never based on the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is subordinated to the ideology of the Left.
What did tobacco ever do for us, compared to the benefits we got from big oil?
It made Winston Churchill, George Burns and Groucho Marks famous. Of course, it killed them all much to early in their short lives.
Winston Churchill was 89 years old when he died
George Burns was 100
Groucho was 87
As he said, much too early. Just imagine how much longer they would have lived without the evil weed! Winnie could replace Boris, George could show Whoopi a good time, and Groucho could take over for Brandon!
No real news here.
“why do you rob banks”?
Dillinger ; “because thats where they keep the money”.
Can’t sue the people and companies that all use and depend on oil derivatives for survival, basically everyone on the planet, that would be foolish.
Its about money.
It was Willy Sutton.
still, same applies
The attorney is close to 70. If that is her photograph, she should be sued for false advertising. Christie Brinkley is not that well preserved, even with makeup and photoshop.
She was lead counsel and director of the tobacco litigation team from 1999-2005 on the United States vs Philip Morris (RICO) case. Although the team was successful in establishing a violation of the RICO act they failed in every other aspect of the case, damages dropping from a sought $289 bn down to $14 bn over 10 years. She can claim all the credit she likes but I think the most significant part of the case in question is what her team failed to achieve.
You’ve got to prove damages. All the rest is legal mumbo jumbo. Ask Rud.
Big oil is a misnomer. Entities like Exxon, Chevron, BP are a minority. It is the state actors, ARAMCO, ADNOC, PDVSA, PEMEX, CNOC etc. that really control the game.
A successful lawsuit would be a massive own goal as all the energy companies move overseas and domestic production dwindles.
But that is not really the goal. Tobacco has not gone away, neither will fossil fuels. There will just be a massive 100%+ cost increse to cover the government “settlement” passed on to the consumers. I.e., taxes will go from ~$1.45/Gal to ~$3.00+ /gal and the government cronies will distribute the lucre among their friends.
The funny thing is the tobacco industry is not responsible for the phenomenal increase in wealth and life expectancy of humanity over the last 200 or so years. So how did we end up with 7 billion people on the planet with ever greater life expectancy? Was it windmills, solar power, homeopathy, superstition and ignorance?
A cost- benefit ratio will easily defeat this nonsensical law suit. Benefits of fossil fuel usage far outstrips any societal costs associated with fossil fuel use.
We assume that the law courts or the defence will be populated with professionals, in the old fashioned sense of the word.
Some are, some are unable to think outside party lines and actually do their job.
But it’s OK when government does it (lying).
More climate lawfare. They know they won’t succeed but it serves their purpose of presenting the false AGW narrative in hopes of eventually getting legal traction.
Go for it !
If I have to see one more excel energy commercial for windmills and bull crap I’m gonna puke.
It’s obvious they think they’re gonna rake it in the green pig troughs, and it disgusts me that have to buy electricity from them.
So true. With the oil companies into “carbon (please can they call it CO2?) capture” they are trying to mollify the greenies. Instead they are just encouraging them. CO2 does not need to be captured. It needs to be released.
Blindside her by asking for actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. If there is no such evidence, then the whole thing is moot.
. Earlier, warmer, warm periods: Minoan, Roman & Medieval, were warmer than now, and all were BEFORE man used fossil fuels. Are we to believe that whatever caused those earlier warm periods, each 1000 years apart, just quit causing warm periods so than man’s CO2 could take over the job right on schedule?
An honest person is a difficult target, even in a police state.
At the end of the day, there is the power of the People.
It’s a tiny power where the people wants to feel self-righteous (like Canada, the American and big Frenchy like country – I’m French and Frenchy isn’t a compliment) or in Russia where the state could arrest many people.
In the US, the state couldn’t arrest many people!
Hey dipstick leftist. How about you prove that CO2 is dangerous and drives the temperature of the planet? (It doesn’t). People like her should be put on a raft with only a sail and now power, and left far out in the ocean.