Suing the Oil Companes for Bad Weather??

[Hobjob]

David Adam and Afua Hirsch
The Guardian, Tuesday December 9 2008
Article history

People affected by worsening storms, heatwaves and floods could soon be able to sue the oil and power companies they blame for global warming, a leading climate expert has said.

Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, said a breakthrough that allows scientists to judge the role man-made climate change played in extreme weather events could see a rush to the courts over the next decade.

He said: "We are starting to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity. And people adversely affected by climate change today are in a position to document and quantify their losses. This is going to be hugely important."

+++++++++++

The world gets madder and madder

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

David Adam and Afua Hirsch
The Guardian, Tuesday December 9 2008
Article history

People affected by worsening storms, heatwaves and floods could soon be able to sue the oil and power companies they blame for global warming, a leading climate expert has said.

Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, said a breakthrough that allows scientists to judge the role man-made climate change played in extreme weather events could see a rush to the courts over the next decade.

He said: "We are starting to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity. And people adversely affected by climate change today are in a position to document and quantify their losses. This is going to be hugely important."

+++++++++++

The world gets madder and madder

Welll........... lets have a think then - what else is affecting us adversely and when I've totted up all the things I think are affecting me adversely shall I look around for who to sue??

I bet solicitors and law folk around the world are rubbing their hands together with glee...........

I can see the adverts now - that chap off the Bill ........ 'Have you been adversely affected by a thunderstorm, flood, cataclysm, downpour of frogs, tide of blood, hailstones the size of footballs .............'

Oh for goodness sake ............. get me out of here.............

Pauline

[Rob_D]

Well the threat of legal action always seems to have big companies running scared so it could have really big effects. However, should you really blame the suppliers of oil and power (nasty as some of them are) for GW? Surely the consumer carries most of the culpability for oil's contribution to climate change, and a great deal of the impact for electricity too.

Pauline, if I get hit by a rain of frogs, can I sue the British Herpetological Society for helping increase their abundance?

[svenrufus]

In defence of this idea - partially as devil's advocate for a moment - big business has made vast sums of money out of practices which depend on externalising costs. In essence this means that the true cost of the businesses activity are not met by the business, but are pushed out to be picked up, unwittingly, by the consumer or the public at large. Obvious examples of this are where a company allows waste chemicals to pour into rivers, which reduces their costs, but means that people whose livelihood depends on the river suffer, and the public at large suffer as the state intervenes to remedy the pollution incident. That sort of blatant externalisation is thankfully getting rarer - at least in the EU, although it continues apace in the developing world.

So, the idea of suing companies responsible for activities that ultimately make us all suffer is no more than a means of forcing companies to internalise those costs again. If the true cost of their actions is paid by the company responsible, then they will have no choice but to pass on those costs to their customers - ie those that use the fuel for whatever reason. As a result, the final consumer pays a realistic cost and is better able to decide whether or not it is still good value, in a much more direct way than looking at a novelty santa hat and weighing the 99p price tag up against chemical pollution in China, human rights abuses, CO2 emissions/sea level rises, landfill costs etc. I think the principle of this idea could be sound....

....but - I can't see it being useful or practical if it is about me in the rich West getting my lawyer onto BP coz it was a bit windy last week and I lost a couple of tiles. If that is all that is going to happen, then no, pretty feeble stuff. However, if the right to sue is extended to people whose farmland is rendered useless by desertification, or if the residents of Lohachara island can sue after their entire island, their home, was obliterated by rising sea levels, then it seems to me that it is difficult to argue with the notion. (Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent).

It is easy to pass the blame on to the consumer over the choices we make, and of course we have to take responsibility for our actions, but it is even easier for multinational companies to kid us into thinking that they are giving us a good deal when in fact the real cost is being paid by someone else - usually someone who can ill afford to pay. If this helps redress the balance, I'm all for it.

[PMG]

Well said svenrufus - afraid I was being on the edge of flippant to downright irritated cos I'm that sick of hearing about folks doing things they shouldn't or not doing things they should or doing downright terrible things like skinning animals alive - that I've got to full up fed up

And Rob D - we will probably get toads which we have plenty of instead of frogs which we could do with - and the 'hard landing' will probably kill them all anyway - ok - I admit it - I'm off the wall again...........

Pauline

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

......... It is easy to pass the blame on to the consumer over the choices we make, and of course we have to take responsibility for our actions, but it is even easier for multinational companies to kid us into thinking that they are giving us a good deal when in fact the real cost is being paid by someone else - usually someone who can ill afford to pay. If this helps redress the balance, I'm all for it.

There is also the possibility of selectively suing those companies (or even just Exxon/Esso ) who have been denying the effect of their products. These people are rather like the tobacco industry who denied that smoking was harmful contrary to research findings including their own. Thus Exxon must know the effect of their drilling and burning yet have worked actively to increase fuel use,for instance by funding George Bush (they deserve a hammering just for that!).

[muscardinus]

I saw this article, too, and scratched my head. Can't fathom how on earth it would work. It's downright bonkers if you ask me. They should save articles like that for April 1st.

So while I admire Pauline and sven's passion, I wonder if this is the right way to fix the issue?

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

David Adam and Afua Hirsch
The Guardian, Tuesday December 9 2008
Article history

People affected by worsening storms, heatwaves and floods could soon be able to sue the oil and power companies they blame for global warming, a leading climate expert has said.

Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, said a breakthrough that allows scientists to judge the role man-made climate change played in extreme weather events could see a rush to the courts over the next decade.

He said: "We are starting to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity. And people adversely affected by climate change today are in a position to document and quantify their losses. This is going to be hugely important."

+++++++++++

The world gets madder and madder

Hi,

So a physicist thinks this might be possible, but what does a lawyer think - I'd like to know. Who are you going to be suing, the CEO, the board of directors of a corporation who's job it is to steer the company, or the marketing department that manipulates the public mentality by creating imagery that affects choice by false ideals of ownership? Either that or the government for allowing construction of a power station that isn't green, instead of a political party that opposed a greener solution because they couldn't convince the voter that they should pay more for it.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Strontium

Hi,

So a physicist thinks this might be possible, but what does a lawyer think - I'd like to know. Who are you going to be suing, the CEO, the board of directors of a corporation who's job it is to steer the company, or the marketing department that manipulates the public mentality by creating imagery that affects choice by false ideals of ownership? Either that or the government for allowing construction of a power station that isn't green, instead of a political party that opposed a greener solution because they couldn't convince the voter that they should pay more for it.

technically if deaths occur as a result you could sue/charge and entire corporate entity with corporate manslaughter. However deciding which corporate entity is responsible for which climate event could be more than a little complex.

[PMG]

Originally Posted by muscardinus

I saw this article, too, and scratched my head. Can't fathom how on earth it would work. It's downright bonkers if you ask me. They should save articles like that for April 1st.

So while I admire Pauline and sven's passion, I wonder if this is the right way to fix the issue?

No its not the right way - I was being very tongue in cheek - the looking round for someone to sue mentality drives me up the wall frankly

A pity cos if it was done properly for the right reasons (instead of the usual how can we make a fast buck syndrome) it would hold a lot of companies in check - or at least make them think twice before they would risk polluting or damaging in any way ..........

Pauline