Australian Politics Forum - Lawsuits for climate disasters?

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #1 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #2 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto.

asbestos ring a bell?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #3 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:40pm

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

...did you mention Coal?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #4 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. In groundbreaking peer-reviewed research, researcher Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute offers the most complete picture to date of which institutions have extracted the fossil fuels that have been the root cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Rather than just attribute emissions to nations, the study aggregates historical emissions according to carbon producing entities themselves. Heede concludes that nearly two-thirds of carbon dioxide emitted since the 1750s can be traced to the 90 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, most of which still operate today.

For example, the top twenty emitters among oil and natural gas liquids companies are:

1. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia years 1938- 2010 108,050 million barrels 40,133 Mt CO2.
2. Chevron, USA 1912- 2010 98,492 36,583
3. ExxonMobil, USA 1884- 2010 79,658 29,587
4. BP, UK 1913- 2010 69,684 25,883
5. National Iranian 1928- 2010 63,130 23,448
6. Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands 1892- 2010 56,962 21,157
7. Pemex, Mexico 1938- 2010 39,797 14,782
8. Petroleos de Venezuela 1960- 2010 34,118 12,673
9. Kuwait Petroleum 1946- 2010 25,095 9,321
10. ConocoPhillips, USA 1924- 2010 24,961 9,271
11. Total, France 1934- 2010 23,683 8,796
12. PetroChina 1988- 2010 22,527 8,367
13. Abu Dhabi National Oil 1962- 2010 20,352 7,559
14. Iraq National Oil 1960- 2010 17,680 6,567
15. Libya National Oil 1961- 2010 15,561 5,780
16. Nigerian National 1959- 2010 15,023 5,580
17. Pertamina, Indonesia 1958- 2010 13,241 4,918
18. Petrobras, Brazil 1960- 2010 12,879 4,784
19. Sonatrach, Algeria 1959- 2010 12,026 4,467
20. Lukoil, Russian Federation 1996- 2010 9,023 3,352

Richard Heede’s 7Nov13) full report is available at Carbon Majors: Methods & Results Report.

This kind of research can lay the groundwater for successful lawsuits for climate disasters, somewhere in the world. As the Chevron Ecuador case has shown, a court judgement anywhere can lead to a search for assets around the world to satisfy it. I wonder how many of these firms deal with climate liability risks on their balance sheets?

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
To illustrate this take for example the case of PCB's nearly all of which to responsibility for their manufacture fell to Monsanto.

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard (which regulators knew also but that's beside the point).
And absence of a host of other sources of asbestos, as in we don't ordinarily breathe it out.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #5 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ...

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

...

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #6 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:44am

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ...

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

...

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Coal dust has a shot.
CO2?... you're dreaming.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #7 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ...

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

...

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Coal dust has a shot.
CO2?... you're dreaming.

So let the courts decide.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #8 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ...

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

...

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Coal dust has a shot.
CO2?... you're dreaming.

So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, unless you can make a direct causal link between a particular incident and a specific company. Meaning you'd need to prove that the Co2 (in the hypothetical case) that 'caused' the problem was produced by a specific company and not by natural action.

It's like trying to link individual water molecules to one water company in a drowning case.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #9 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Lawsuits for climate disasters?

by Dianne Saxe on January 21, 2014

Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid. ...

I can't begin to list the reasons why any such suit would fail or never be brought by anyone sane.
...

As the article says, the groundwork is being laid. It's early days yet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

...

asbestos ring a bell?

Differences....let's see....prior knowledge that it was a hazard ...

Could be argued, I guess. Didn't the ancient Greeks ponder the impact of human activities (such as forestry) on weather (if not climate)? Didn't Arrhenius issue a pretty clear warning in the 19^th Century? Hasn't evidence been mounting ever since? I remember some pretty convincing presentations in the middle of last century.

Couldn't it be argued that ignorance at this point is wilful? Legally, couldn't that be presented as evidence of negligence?

Coal dust has a shot.
CO2?... you're dreaming.

So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, unless you can make a direct causal link between a particular incident and a specific company. Meaning you'd need to prove that the Co2 (in the hypothetical case) that 'caused' the problem was produced by a specific company and not by natural action.

It's like trying to link individual water molecules to one water company in a drowning case.

You're also going to run into a problem, along with causation, of standing and what constitutes special damage. If # wants to put his money into a suit he can do what he likes. I'll look forward to it.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #10 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #11 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #12 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #13 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law. The legal system isn't hard to understand, if it was lawyers couldn't do it.

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #14 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law.

Me too.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

The legal system isn't hard to understand, ...

As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

All things are possible.

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

Back to top

IP Logged