The Law US court opens climate change litigation floodgates

[bit_pattern]

It's interesting that the decision refers to a Massachusetts SC case where the EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 emissions "contributes to injury" of the litigant in that case. Could that, in theory, leave the door open to legal action against the EPA as opposed to the polluting industries?

I wonder what bearing that decision had on the EPA's recent regulation of CO2 as a pollutant?

 

[A Living God]

Damages to the plaintiff where assessed at $100,000. Global warming increased the intensity of the cyclone 20% and damage caused by 50%. The defendant contributory negilance is judged to be one millionth of the additional damage.

The defendant is ordered to pay the planiff $0.03.

 

[bit_pattern]

Those who know are already weighing the risk assessment from climate change damags.

http://www.zurich.com.au/zportal/cs...here=1222645531217&blobheader=application/pdf

The more this sort of thing is quantified the more pople are going to be looking for who exactly is responsible.

 

[cancat]

This is about lawyers getting paid. If this gets up you could sue anyone whose activities cause the release CO2 into the atmosphere. Activities such as using a computer running off the mains, driving a car or taking a flight.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is about lawyers getting paid. If this gets up you could sue anyone whose activities cause the release CO2 into the atmosphere. Activities such as using a computer running off the mains, driving a car or taking a flight.

No, because the emissions are created by the power stations.

 

[Tex_21]

No, because the emissions are created by the power stations.

And the demand for the power produced has nothing to do with it?

If the power stations suddenly stopped producing power straight out-can you imagine the outcry?

 

[bit_pattern]

And the demand for the power produced has nothing to do with it?

If the power stations suddenly stopped producing power straight out-can you imagine the outcry?

But a consumer is simply purchasing electricity, they don't choose whether it comes from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro etc. Whereas the provider choose to provide electricity through the burning of coal, the onus and responsibility lies with them and not the consumer.

 

[Tex_21]

But a consumer is simply purchasing electricity, they don't choose whether it comes from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro etc. Whereas the provider choose to provide electricity through the burning of coal, the onus and responsibility lies with them and not the consumer.

The vast majority of consumers know exactly where their power comes from however-they are implicit in this. THey know that if they stop demanding the power, the emissions will decrease.

And if the responsibility lies on the consumer, then why does everyone have thos little energy saver light globes?

 

[bit_pattern]

The vast majority of consumers know exactly where their power comes from however-they are implicit in this. THey know that if they stop demanding the power, the emissions will decrease.

No, no they don't. America's grid is much more diverse than Australia's. They have a wide mix of gas, nuclear, hydro and coal. Once that electricity is in the grid it is in the grid, period. When you plug something into the wall there is no way of saying that your electricity was generated by any one of those. The consumer buys electricity, if the provider creates GHG emissions in the process of creating that electricity then responsibility falls on them.

And if the responsibility lies on the consumer, then why does everyone have thos little energy saver light globes?

Legal responsibility and consumer responsibility are two entirely different concepts.

 

[Tex_21]

Fair enough-can't say I know much about the US power grid.

But, if there was sufficient power generated from green sources such as Hydro, Nuclear etc, why the need for coal? Now, I guess that there isn't anywhere near sufficient power generated here, so the coal-fired stations are filling a market gap, which exists as a result of consumer demand. I believe the 'consumer', as a whole is just as liable.

 

[cancat]

No, because the emissions are created by the power stations.

Not when you drive a car or take a flight.

 

[HarryTiger]

The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity. (See photo of Bay St. Louis, Miss., after the storm.)

OK let them sue.

The award will reflect the excess damage, that is over which what would have otherwise occurred had the sea level not risen by the determined amount*, and the defendants will pay the portion of that for which they are considered, on the global scale, to have contributed to it.

Here you go land owners, $2.50, spend it wisely.

*This sea level is the level above normal that was whipped up by the hurricane. How much extra did GW add to that? And in the context of the extremely choppy conditions how much extra water flowed landward as a result of that? Then how much extra damage resulted from that extra water? (recalling your TV/carpet/playstation etc is ruined whether it's sitting in 50 cm of water or 51 cm of water)

 

[bit_pattern]

Let them sue indeed. It's not the settlement that will matter, it's the precdent. I don't think anyone would have much hope of proving a definite causal link between Katrina and global warming, but I do think as these events become more frequent and more fierce then the causation with global warming will become clearer as will the culpability of the big industries that allowed this to happen, regardless of the fact that they knew the problem was real and sought to deny it at every level since at least the mid 1980's.

 

[cancat]

Let them sue indeed. It's not the settlement that will matter, it's the precdent. I don't think anyone would have much hope of proving a definite causal link between Katrina and global warming, but I do think as these events become more frequent and more fierce then the causation with global warming will become clearer as will the culpability of the big industries that allowed this to happen, regardless of the fact that they knew the problem was real and sought to deny it at every level since at least the mid 1980's.

Consumers are as much 'to blame' then. Have you ever taken a flight or used electricity? I am coming after you with my lawyers.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ You can try, I doubt the courts would agree with you, but in this case however the 5th Circuit did find that there is enouh of a causal link for this case to go to a higher court.

 

[cancat]

There is no difference in the 'crime' committed by the public and industry - it's just a matter of degree. If you indulge in activities that produce CO2 you are a 'polluter' and are liable to be sued by people whose lawyers can convince a court that your actions contributed.

Let's hope for all our sakes this legal action ends up where it belongs. Up the back passage of the judges that just made this ridiculous ruling.