Climate Change Lawsuits Increasing

Who sues over climate? Well, apparently lots of people are doing so. No cases have been taken seriously but, there is concern that one day they may.

How utterly ridiculous. I think these idiots should pay for bringing up these frivolous lawsuits. Enough is enough.

"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.'"

Click title of post for full story.

So, lets just sue all the companies that provide jobs and put everyone out of business so some scum bag can live high on the hog while employees, people who actually WORK, can be laid off and suffer. Is this the solution that these folks find attractive? They honestly believe that it's best to destroy businesses for a fast buck?

Unbelievable. I guess I'm just supposed to stop breathing now because some moron is going to come and sue me because my exhaling is causing him problems. When does it end?