I just came across this article(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLQy3ze-D7N4ZQzyDjvLA8ChIEhQ?docId=CNG.0974f2ca1c91adea909b6017dc4d554e.471):
Climate change: Dogs of law are off the leash
By Richard Ingham (AFP) – 22 hours ago
PARIS — From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.
Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.
Imagine: a country or an individual could get redress for a drought that destroyed farmland, for floods and storms that created an army of refugees, for rising seas that wiped a small island state off the map.
In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Eyeing the money-spinning potential, some major commercial law firms now place climate-change litigation in their Internet shop window.
Seminars on climate law are often thickly attended by corporations that could be in the firing line -- and by the companies that insure them.
But legal experts sound a note of caution, warning that this is a new and mist-shrouded area of justice.
Many obstacles lie ahead before a Western court awards a cent in climate damages and even more before the award is upheld on appeal.
"There's a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem," said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.
"The number of suits filed has increased radically. But the number of suits claiming damages from climate change that have been successful remains zero."
Lawsuits in the United States related directly or indirectly almost tripled in 2010 over 2009, reaching 132 filings after 48 a year earlier, according to a Deutsche Bank report.
Elsewhere in the world, the total of lawsuits is far lower than in the US, but nearly doubled between 2008 and 2010, when 32 cases were filed, according to a tally compiled by AFP from specialist sites.
The majority of these cases touch on regulatory issues and access to information, which can have many repercussions for coal, gas and oil producers and big carbon-emitting industries such as steel and cement.
"In this area, the floodgates have opened," said Michael Gerrard, director of the recently-opened Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York, who contributed to the Deutsche Bank report.
In the United States, many cases seek clarification on the right of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while in Europe, the main issue has been emissions quotas allotted to companies in Europe's carbon market.
In some cases, courts have thrown out the suits, admitted part of them or declared themselves unfit to issue a ruling and booted the affair to a higher authority.
The legal fog is especially thick when it comes to so-called nuisance suits, which seek to determine blame, and thus open the way to damages.
"There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants," said Gerrard. "The biggest problem, though, is causation."
Gerrard and others pointed out some of the dilemmas for establishing liability, starting with the fact that fossil fuels are used, by all of us, in complete legality.
And a molecule of CO2 is no respecter of national boundaries. Gas emitted by a car in Los Angeles or by a coal plant in China will help drive climate damage in South Asia, Europe, the North Pole -- anywhere.
Then there is the business of distinguishing between weather and climate. For instance, hurricanes, droughts and floods have always occurred in human history. Can one, or even several, of these be pinned to human meddling in the climate system?
And there's a further complication: rich nations were the first to plunder the coal, oil and gas that powered the industrial revolution, but they are now being overtaken by China and other fast-growing but still poor giants.
So who is to blame? And to what degree?
Some of the wrangling can be seen in a 2006 case in which California sued three US and three Japanese carmakers, arguing that emissions from their vehicles had caused among other things a melting of mountain snow pack on which the state depends for its water.
That case was dismissed by a district court in 2007, which ruled that the issues were "political questions" that should be tackled by the US president and Congress.
It also noted that the cars were sold legally, that the car emissions had not violated any current laws or regulations and climate change had many contributing factors.
Two other big cases touching on liability have gone to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on competence.
In the most eagerly-awaited case, whose ruling is expected by the end of June, the state of Connecticut is demanding an injunction against major power companies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
"That will definitely be the big one," said Gerrard. "Everyone is waiting to hear what the Supreme Court says."
Christoph Schwarte, a lawyer with a British charity called FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development), said that even if today's lawsuits run into the sand, "some of these cases may be winnable in the future."
"Case law in the future might evolve, and scientists' claims to determine the percentage of human contribution to certain extreme weather events may be recognised in some way or another."
Today's lawsuits may also spur thinking about future liability risks among major emitters, Schwarte argued.
Many tobacco and asbestos lawsuits, for instance, hinged on arguments that firms knew their product was dangerous at the time, but concealed this evidence from the public.
"(The lawsuits) create awareness and thus also may have an impact on the actions of governments and corporations," said Schwarte.
"They also create caution" about what is said in internal documents and emails, he said. "In 15 years' time, you might not be able to turn around and say 'I didn't know anything about it at the time.'"
Our court system is jammed full of frivolous lawsuits and now this! What is next? Will airliners be sued for the emissions airplanes give off? Some things I understand ligitation but to sue based on a theory that is still hotly debated is ridiculous. Am I alone here? Set aside the Global Warming debate. Can anyone logically sue based on excessive hurricanes, droughts, floods and/or snow?
Viper,
ReplyDeleteThe courts have been used for centuries to force social/political change that the population did not have the will power or courage to do themselves. Civil rights is an example. Abortion, gay rights, environmental rights, etc are all examples of this as well.
Like it or hate it, the court system is the leading edge of our political/social discussions in many ways. This is no different on the right side of the aisle than it is the left. Are you telling me that conservative groups don't use the judicial branch to leverage their ideologies?
The fact that it occurs in climate change shouldn't be surprising. And the fact that you only call out the lefts attempts seems a bit hypocritic don't you think? What about all the frivolous lawsuits around gay marriage? Or anti-abortion? Or anti-regulation? Or anti-union?
Where is it ok to use the courts and where is it not? Who gets to decide that some things are frivolous?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that our court system has been used in the past to push social agenda's. See Abortion, gay rights, other aspects of our social agenda should not be legislative in the first part thus limiting the potential litigation.
Now, I don't see this as being hypocritical either as I see the use of the judicial system is to be for capital or civil crimes that take place. Frivolous litigation is any litigation where the lawyer gets paid only a percentage of a win.
Viper...
ReplyDeleteClimate change- "a theory that is still hotly debated"? Not to climate scientists and those who have and currently are studying it. The only debate is the one going on between pundits and politicians who are in the back pockets of the energy companies.
Now, I am not the biggest fan of using the courtroom for political purposes, but litigation against the healthcare bill? You don't think thats the same thing?
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThe health care mandate is not the same as suing a company for a perceived impact on the environment. Unless the company is dumping toxic waste or polluting the water ways then how can we litigate companies over climate change?
The same reason states were able to sue tobacco companies.
ReplyDeleteThey had documented and scientifically tested and peer reviewed data that showed that the tobacco companies purposely misled people about the effects of smoking. Now...you might have disagreed with this particular type of litigation as well, however, there have been lawsuits against the tobacco companies decades before and it was never very successful until the data began to stack in favor of the plaintiffs. This was primarily because the consistent scientific data kept getting into the court record. Over time, judges and juries are able to notice patterns of misbehavior by the defendents and that led to successful lawsuits.
Climate change is going to be one of those issues. As long as you have legal professionals who are willing to start tracking the data over time, this sort of thing is not going away. I know-along with pornographers and payday loan stores owners, these lawyers are walking the fine line between legitimate and slimy. But that is the nature of class action law, and it's nothing new. All the plaintiffs need is the science on their side, and next they will be seeking intent.
Next up...think about childhood obesity. That one has a couple of years head start.
The thing with Tobacco there is definitive proof that smoking will harm your body. That is why I don't get it. How can anyone with a rational mind smoke all their lives then turn around and sue because of their own stupid decision. The Tobacco company didn't make anyone smoke.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I can see the childhood obesity deal - the question is who to blame - parents, fast food, video game, television makers...who?
"The health care mandate is not the same as suing a company for a perceived impact on the environment."
ReplyDeleteLawsuits must have causation to prove their claims. If the lawsuit is about pollution, then it's perfectly valid as pollution is measurable, traceable and in many countries illegal.
"The thing with Tobacco there is definitive proof that smoking will harm your body."
And yet for 50+ years, southern politicians and "scientists" claimed that tobacco wasn't addictive nor harmful.
How is this different? I'm curious as to why you can see the "special interests" on the left whenever you choose but consistently fail to see your own political leanings "special interest" influences.
That's my point. You seem to see the boogy man when you choose to, but ONLY when it suits you. And you seem to put blinders on to your own skeletons in the closet because they're inconvenient.
My reference to hypocrisy wasn't specifically to you. It was in general. People tend to use tactics for their own benefit and then cry foul when others do so.
Example - Nazi references.
If a GOP/Fox operative uses the reference then it's ok. If a democrat uses it, it's the worst offense since Judas sold out Jesus to the Romans.
Hypocrisy is the worst of political sins, but they all commit it frequently.
Truman
ReplyDeleteIn the realm of climate change, the climate is in constant change but to what impact man has on it is up for debate. One of many debunked predictions was that we'd see snowless winters by 2000 but this year and last year we have seen near record snowfalls. Now the climate hawks have switched their tune.
Now if Company A has been dumping toxic waste into the local water supply then we have cause for litigation. The kicker with tobacco - in its natural form it is not addictive (then again I don't prescribe to addiction).
Naturally people use tactics to their own benefit that is Darwinism in action.
"Naturally people use tactics to their own benefit that is Darwinism in action."
ReplyDeleteThen why are you complaining? Or is government intervention to prevent "frivolous" lawsuits ok as long as you get to determine what is frivolous?
Because government intervention is what is required to block these suits, so that is what you are advocating. And here, I thought you were a small government tea partier.
Just a heads up, but your true colors are showing.
"One of many debunked predictions was that we'd see snowless winters by 2000 but this year and last year we have seen near record snowfalls"
ReplyDeleteYou are understanding exactly what I mean.
I used the tobacco analogy simply so that you can understand that in its day, the scientific data backing up the dangers of smoking were not so clear cut as they are today. At least not to the courts. Many scientific and medical journals going back to the 30's and 40's showed data that smoking was dangerous. But like in climate change, there was conflicting data that the courts had to consider.
No, the tobacco company didn't make anyone smoke, but they sure did hide the contents of their cigarettes and testified under oath that they did not believe the dangers of smoking. They marketed a product that cost billions of dollars in Medicare/Medicaid(taxpayer dollars) and continually marketed it to younger people and hid the effects so discreetly, that it took years for the courts and even Congress to sort out what you and I consider obvious.
Your above quote may have been a very alarmist reaction, however, climate scientists have been compiling data for years that show man-made climate change. The only question mark now is exactly how badly that is going to affect us and what we can do about it. The data is not in debate. But this is a separate issue in contrast to the litigation of climate change. The scientific data can get into the court record, however, plaintiffs now have to connect the effect of a certain natural disaster to climate change specifically. We'll see how easy this is going to be.
"this year and last year we have seen near record snowfalls"
Be careful...there is a difference between temperature and climate. Climate scientists all along have stated that the effect of the warming is to push weather patterns into extremes. 2010 and 2006 were the warmest average temperatures on earth ever recorded.
Who is to say at some point in the Earth's history that the Equator did not run North and South? Evidence exists of a huge ice age and other extreme weather - all of which existed prior to the Industrial Revolution. I am not saying our actions do not impact the climate but is the impact as dire as Gore and others warn us?
ReplyDelete"Evidence exists of a huge ice age and other extreme weather - all of which existed prior to the Industrial Revolution."
ReplyDeleteAre you going to be so obtuse as to say that the sheer volume of pollution the human race makes has NO EFFECT on the earth's atmosphere?
Is that really your argument?
According to the vast majority of scientists, we're warming faster than any period in history that has ever been identified. And between ice core samples from Antartica which go back 10's of thousands of years a geological data, that fact is irrefutable.
Just because businesses hire pseudo-scientists to back their positions in order to maintain their profit margins doesn't make those scientists "facts" right. It simply muddies the waters because there are always going to be corrupt scientists - the tobacco industry proved that.
That is the point anon was trying to make, that scientists bought by industry are no longer scientists. That the tobacco industries 100+ years of argument that tobacco wasn't addictive or harmful were proven false 50 years ago BUT that the lies continued for 50 more years.
Can you not see the logic in that argument?
I understand that hired scientists have an intrinsic duty to provide data that favor the employer. At the same time, Mother Nature is adaptive and while we do impact her the question/debate is how much we impact her.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I'd wish a scientific debate would take place without political, social and business intervention.
"This is why I'd wish a scientific debate would take place without political, social and business intervention. "
ReplyDeleteIt has, and the scientists who are being paid simply to do reseach have answered the question. IT's the politicians, pundits and businesses that don't like the answer.
Truman: "Are you going to be so obtuse as to say that the sheer volume of pollution the human race makes has NO EFFECT on the earth's atmosphere?"
ReplyDeleteViper (from a post JUST ABOVE Truman's): " I am not saying our actions do not impact the climate but is the impact as dire as Gore and others warn us?"
Now, at the risk of doing just the same thing - why do we all lock in on one component of someone's response, and not read it all? I get that when we are speaking, we can tend to formulate an argument before fully hearing the other side out. But why, when things are in print, do we do the same thing???? Are we arguing just for the sake of argument here? Are we really that important???? sorry - but I tend to see people attack Chris A LOT here, calling him everything from a hypocrate to heartless, to you name it. First of all - it's HIS page you are commenting on. If you don't like him, why do you return???? Or maybe that is your way of communicating, calling people names and attacking their character? (Truman, I'm not singling you out here, you're not the only one who's done this).
I know Chris doesn't need defense, and his skin is thicker than most. But that's not what my rant is about. I'm asking each of us to consider our responses before we fly off with attacks. EVEN IF we feel the other guy started it...... You don't have to listen, and you can certainly respond stating that I'm an idiot. Great. But if you will be humble for just one moment, maybe some of this will resonate, and maybe there will be more of an element of respect for our fellow man? Let's start here, and carry it elsewhere?
Here's a pretty cool read: http://www.history.org/almanack/life/manners/rules2.cfm
I suggest WE ALL read it, and put it into practice.......
With all due respect - Ted