News Can You Sue a Company for CO2 Emissions?

[Opus_723]

Well, I guess that answers the question of whether this would actually work in court. Thanks for that reference.

Okay, long post coming up, but since we now have an answer to the original question, I think it's warranted.

how would you demonstrate unreasonableness when nobody can agree that global warming is occurring, predict with reasonable accuracy its effects, or attribute with any specificity its causes)

A judge decided in the Kitzmiller trial that intelligent design wasn't science, even though MANY people disagree with that statement. It is held among the scientific community that global warming and ocean acidification are occurring. That should be enough for a court. After all, criminal courts allow polygraphs to be used as evidence, even if there are people that dispute the validity of that test. The same goes for many forensics techniques.

An indirect action that resulted in diminished market value doesn't count - for example, if the markets decided a property was worth less based on, say, proximity to a power plant, through no fault of the electric utility. Again, the only exceptions here are those specifically granted by statute.

No one is claiming an indirect action like that. The claim would be something like "This company's CO2 emissions affected my land, decreasing crop yields." That is direct damage to property.

---------------------------------------

As for the ruling, I've only read the summary in the beginning so far (just less than half the document, though). A lot of the reasoning behind that decision frustrates me.

For instance, the ruling reasons that since everyone emits CO2, the court would have to decide on a set limit above which emissions can be liable for damage, which the court doesn't have the authority to do. But this isn't true. The whole concept of AGW rests on the idea that the reintroduction of fossil fuel carbon causes climate change, not cellular respiration. That's not a political decision, that's science.

Also, does tort law seriously only apply if the action is of net cost to society? The ruling talks about how, to determine if the action was unreasonable, they would have to analyze the economic and societal costs of emitting less carbon. That seems absurd to me. By that logic, a company could completely bulldoze my house, so long as doing otherwise would have cost more to society.

As to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the ruling again defies logic. Just because the effect is "remote" doesn't mean it's not attributable. Like I said. If a company causes x% of the total warming, then they should be liable for x% of the damage. Does the court think it's possible that other company's emissions are causing warming, but this particular company's carbon is different somehow, having no effect?

The third section is probably more reasonable, as it simply interprets the existing tort law as not being applicable. I would argue that the laws should be changed if they prevent people from seeking property damages, but that's a different debate.

So, while I strongly disagree with the logic behind the ruling, I'm glad to have an answer to my original question. Thank you, talk2glenn.

 

[Opus_723]

That's just not true in the sense relevant here. People buying the product causes it to be produced. An analogy: The act of hiring a hitman doesn't kill anyone, the act of the hitman pulling the trigger does. But both are equally responsible.

The only way that a buyer is not just as responsible as the seller or "maker" of a product or service is if the seller or maker knows something the buyer doesn't.

Hiring a hitman requires intent to break the law through murder. Buying a product does not require intent to pollute. Companies have been held responsible for damages caused by other pollutants/toxins, and no one sued the customers buying the product. I don't see why you insist on treating CO2 differently.

 

[Al68]

Hiring a hitman requires intent to break the law through murder. Buying a product does not require intent to pollute. Companies have been held responsible for damages caused by other pollutants/toxins, and no one sued the customers buying the product. I don't see why you insist on treating CO2 differently.

Because CO2 is not a pollutant. And I already pointed out the reason why a company, but not its customers, can be held responsible for pollutants. Because the company either knew or should have known, while it's not reasonable to expect their customers to know such things. This is not the case with CO2, unless you assume both that it caused damage, and the company knew it would while the customers didn't. That clearly isn't the case, even if we make the first assumption. CO2 emissions would be analogous to the hitman, not pollution.

It is held among the scientific community that global warming and ocean acidification are occurring.

Sure, but that's very different from proving that burning fossil fuels has anything to do with it. And man-made climate change advocates simply don't treat it like a science, they treat it like a religion. They try to avoid and dismiss scrutiny instead of inviting it. They try to use weather events as evidence after they occur, despite the fact that they didn't predict them. They fudge and cherry pick their data to support their claims. They use bait and switch tactics between their claims to mislead people about which claims are evidenced by what data.

It has all the characteristics of a religion instead of a science. Which reminds me: I don't want to get too much into the subject because we're not supposed to denigrate any religion here at PF.

That should be enough for a court.

In that case, analogously, proof that a plaintiff has cancer would be "good enough for a court" when they sue Walmart for that damned smiley face.

There is a burden to prove that the defendants actions actually caused the damage. And such proof simply does not exist for burning fossil fuels.

 

[talk2glenn]

A judge decided in the Kitzmiller trial that intelligent design wasn't science, even though MANY people disagree with that statement. It is held among the scientific community that global warming and ocean acidification are occurring. That should be enough for a court. After all, criminal courts allow polygraphs to be used as evidence, even if there are people that dispute the validity of that test. The same goes for many forensics techniques.

The question in Kitzmiller was whether or not intelligent design was an inherently religious theory, or a secular and/or scientific one. On the basis of the evidence, the judge decided that it was dogmatic. He did not grant plaintiffs motion on the basis that ID was "flawed" or "wrong", but that it violated the establishment clause.

No one is claiming an indirect action like that. The claim would be something like "This company's CO2 emissions affected my land, decreasing crop yields." That is direct damage to property.

Such a claim could not be made. CO2 once emitted is diffused into the atmosphere, and the functional effect on crop yields is poorly understood. No one could geographically link emissions from company x to specific crop failures on agrilcutral plot y.

As for the ruling, I've only read the summary in the beginning so far (just less than half the document, though). A lot of the reasoning behind that decision frustrates me.

Please don't confuse the defendants opinion with that of the court. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court affirms the arguments, but doesn't issue an opinion on the facts (which are assumed true in pre-trial hearing).

For instance, the ruling reasons that since everyone emits CO2, the court would have to decide on a set limit above which emissions can be liable for damage, which the court doesn't have the authority to do. But this isn't true. The whole concept of AGW rests on the idea that the reintroduction of fossil fuel carbon causes climate change, not cellular respiration. That's not a political decision, that's science.

Irrelevant. No matter how clear the causal distinction may be to you, firms cannot reasonably be expected to know this and inform their decisions given it. They rightly look to the legislature for guidance on conduct where the potential for harm is not reasonably obvious and apparent to an informed layman. There is no such guidance on this subject.

Also, does tort law seriously only apply if the action is of net cost to society? The ruling talks about how, to determine if the action was unreasonable, they would have to analyze the economic and societal costs of emitting less carbon. That seems absurd to me. By that logic, a company could completely bulldoze my house, so long as doing otherwise would have cost more to society.

In this case, yes. Plaintiffs were alleging general harm. Courts would have to weigh the general benefit against the general harm when determining whether or not society, generally, would accept one for the other, again unless the legislature gives specific guidance. This is partly why you cannot sue car manufacturers just because cars kill people, even when used correctly - the risk of death is general to society, not the result of specific defect or neglience, and outweighed by their benefits.

As to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the ruling again defies logic. Just because the effect is "remote" doesn't mean it's not attributable. Like I said. If a company causes x% of the total warming, then they should be liable for x% of the damage. Does the court think it's possible that other company's emissions are causing warming, but this particular company's carbon is different somehow, having no effect?

If there is a continuous marginal relationship between a one unit change in CO2 emissions and monetary damages to crop yields, then everyone, everywhere would have some finite X% liability. This is absurd.

 

[Opus_723]

Because CO2 is not a pollutant. And I already pointed out the reason why a company, but not its customers, can be held responsible for pollutants. Because the company either knew or should have known, while it's not reasonable to expect their customers to know such things. This is not the case with CO2, unless you assume both that it caused damage, and the company knew it would while the customers didn't. That clearly isn't the case, even if we make the first assumption. CO2 emissions would be analogous to the hitman, not pollution.

I think companies have been held liable even if the pollution was common knowledge. If a company dumped toxic waste near my property and it damaged my property, I could sue them even if I was their customer and was well aware that toxic waste was a byproduct of their business. The issue is that I didn't give them permission to dispose of that byproduct in a way that damages my property.

Sure, but that's very different from proving that burning fossil fuels has anything to do with it. And man-made climate change advocates simply don't treat it like a science, they treat it like a religion. They try to avoid and dismiss scrutiny instead of inviting it. They try to use weather events as evidence after they occur, despite the fact that they didn't predict them. They fudge and cherry pick their data to support their claims. They use bait and switch tactics between their claims to mislead people about which claims are evidenced by what data. It has all the characteristics of a religion instead of a science.
That should be enough for a court.
In that case, analogously, proof that a plaintiff has cancer would be "good enough for a court" when they sue Walmart for that damned smiley face.

It is also held among the scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and ocean acidification. If you're willing to accept the consensus that it's happening at all, why not accept the consensus that it's due to fossil fuels? Honestly, I don't see how you can even argue that ocean acidification isn't caused by fossil fuels. That is very measurable in ways that global warming isn't. The CO2 directly affects the water's qualities.

 

[Opus_723]

The question in Kitzmiller was whether or not intelligent design was an inherently religious theory, or a secular and/or scientific one. On the basis of the evidence, the judge decided that it was dogmatic. He did not grant plaintiffs motion on the basis that ID was "flawed" or "wrong", but that it violated the establishment clause.

My point was that the judge was able to decide that it WAS a religious theory, even though there is a lot of debate over that, and the legislature did not guide this decision. Similarly, a judge should be able to weigh the evidence and decide that fossil fuel emissions are distinct from cellular respiration emissions in their contribution to climate change.

Such a claim could not be made. CO2 once emitted is diffused into the atmosphere, and the functional effect on crop yields is poorly understood. No one could geographically link emissions from company x to specific crop failures on agrilcutral plot y.

If no other CO2 were being emitted, the defendant's CO2 would still warm the planet by the same amount. No geographical link is necessary.

Please don't confuse the defendants opinion with that of the court. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court affirms the arguments, but doesn't issue an opinion on the facts (which are assumed true in pre-trial hearing).

Not sure what you mean here. I've read the whole thing now, and the summary I read was indicative of the ruling.

Irrelevant. No matter how clear the causal distinction may be to you, firms cannot reasonably be expected to know this and inform their decisions given it. They rightly look to the legislature for guidance on conduct where the potential for harm is not reasonably obvious and apparent to an informed layman. There is no such guidance on this subject.

"Reasonably" is very subjective. Like I said about the Kitzmiller case, a court managed to make a very important distinction without guidance, because it was reasonably obvious that the distinction was valid. The judge did not need Congress to make a law saying that ID was a religion.

In this case, yes. Plaintiffs were alleging general harm. Courts would have to weigh the general benefit against the general harm when determining whether or not society, generally, would accept one for the other, again unless the legislature gives specific guidance. This is partly why you cannot sue car manufacturers just because cars kill people, even when used correctly - the risk of death is general to society, not the result of specific defect or neglience, and outweighed by their benefits.

There is no negligence on the part of the automaker. They sell a product and people use it. CO2 is not the product here, it is a waste material that the power company disposes of. It is the company's responsibility. Their irresponsible disposal of that waste is a specific negligence.

If there is a continuous marginal relationship between a one unit change in CO2 emissions and monetary damages to crop yields, then everyone, everywhere would have some finite X% liability. This is absurd.

This is fair. The company pays the full cost of their pollution. Just because it may be unappealing to some doesn't make it wrong.

Gah. This is turning into a quote war. Sorry, mods.

 

[JaredJames]

Opus, you're ignoring basic legal framework here.

Why even bother to come and ask if you're going to brush off the entire legal system?

Let's just point out how ridiculous it is:

The consumer wants electricity, so the company provides it by burning coal. The consumer then gets annoyed because it may be contributing to affecting their business. They sue the power company for burning coal. They then continue to demand electricity.

Absolute non-sense.

The consumer either doesn't have electricity or finds another means of producing it. The company simply went with demand via the cheapest - and a perfectly legal means.

If the consumer hadn't wanted electricity in the first place, the company wouldn't have been producing it and so no emissions made and hence no effect on the business.

This is how supply and demand works. This is the entire basis of selling products. If there's no demand, you don't produce it. In this respect, you can trace the cause all the way back to the consumer. As such, the only people I see as having a valid case here would be the Amish.

 

[Opus_723]

But the demand was for electricity. No one forced the companies to provide it by burning coal. Nobody forced the company to make electricity at all. The company meets demand voluntarily, in order to profit.

If the company sold electricity under the condition, by contract, that they might damage your property with it's production, then that would be fair: to their customers. That still doesn't give them to right to damage another person's property, who never bought electricity from them. Someone might buy electricity from one company that emits CO2, but that doesn't give every company in the country permission to damage their property.

 

[JaredJames]

But the demand was for electricity. No one forced the companies to provide it by burning coal. Nobody forced the company to make electricity at all. The company meets demand voluntarily, in order to profit.

If the company sold electricity under the condition, by contract, that they might damage my property with it's production, then that would be fair: to their customers. That still doesn't give them to right to damage another person's property, who never bought electricity from them. Someone might buy electricity from one company that emits CO2, but that doesn't give every company in the country permission to damage their property.

Cut the crap, you don't decide which plant provides you with electric. Or at least the average consumer doesn't - you have to put a lot of effort and generally money into that, far beyond the average consumer.

I'd also note that renewables aren't always available and hydro aside, aren't consistent. So they are effectively useless in the long term so far as supply goes. So yes, (re bolded) they are forced to use coal, oil, gas or nuclear.

So on the basis of your argument, I can sue you for driving your car and producing CO2. It's plain ridiculous.

Whether you like it or not, the coal, oil, gas and nuclear are the best sources of energy and at the moment the only things able to meet the demand.

Your whole premise is "they provide me with electric - which I couldn't live without* - and now I'm annoyed that to do that there's a downside".

* Our lives revolve around electricity and it's not something we can do without. The irony is that you are sat here complaining, with the odds being that it is using electric produced via means you are attacking.

As an additional, these sources are not illegal in any way. They are the cheapest means to provide electric. So there are two options to the consumer - either they (the consumer) foot the bill for renewables and accept the inconsistencies with supply, or they go with the cheap option which is to allow the use of the four above and accept the minor downside.

By taking out a contract for supply from a company using those four, knowing full well that they use those four, you are accepting the emissions.

I'd support your premise if there were valid alternatives, but there are not. It's as simple as that. You either have electric with emissions or you don't have electric and go back to the dark ages.

 

[Opus_723]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

As I said, it's arguable that by buying electricity from a comapny, I am accepting the damage. You may be right there. That does not mean I consent to damage from every other company in the world that I am not a customer of.

I never said that emissions need to go away. But a company should be liable for the damage they cause, if it is not consented to.

 

[JaredJames]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

1. Prove who did what damage and that said damage is a direct result of negligence / secrecy by the company in question - impossible.

2. How many people don't have electricity? It is only those without electric that have a valid claim assuming they can prove the above. A consumer would have to prove they are completely unaware that coal, oil, gas or nuclear* are used in power production.

* I'm leaving nuclear in the arguments as there is waste with it and it is pollution, so I think it's a valid consideration given the topic being discussed.

I never said that emissions need to go away. But a company should be liable for the damage they cause, if it is not consented to.

You consent to it when you agree to buy electric from them via those means.

If you don't have an electric supply (or produce your own), the above applies.

Your whole premise is flawed. Can you not understand what I've outlined in previous posts? It's not some simple argument like you're making out. It is impossible to assign blame, that would stand up in a court of law.

 

[Opus_723]

1. Very hard, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm assuming that the person could provide evidence for now. I'm mostly bothered by the claim that they don't have the right to sue the company in the first place.

2. No, they would only have to prove that they're not a customer of the company in question. Therefore they never consented to the damage.

Also, nuclear only affects me if radiation affects my property. In which case I'd sue. If they dispose of the waste in a way that doesn't affect me, then there's no problem.

 

[JaredJames]

1. Very hard, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm assuming that the person could provide evidence for now. I'm mostly bothered by the claim that they don't have the right to sue the company in the first place.

Bad assumption. It doesn't follow reality.

2. No, they would only have to prove that they're not a customer of the company in question. Therefore they never consented to the damage.

You are blissfully unaware of how power production works aren't you.

There isn't some wonderful selection of what types of production can be used all over the states / UK etc. You have the production that can be supplied cheaply and meet demand.

As previous, outside of coal, oil, gas and nuclear, nothing else can meet demand. So either you provide a valid alternative - that is equally as legal as the above and cheaper - or you have to accept it.

Also, nuclear only affects me if radiation affects my property. In which case I'd sue. If they dispose of the waste in a way that doesn't affect me, then there's no problem.

Prove that a coal plant has directly caused damage to you and it came down to negligence or secrecy. Then prove you don't get your power from that plant (or one producing equal emissions). Then prove you have never used a plant producing emissions. Then explain why you moved near a plant producing emissions to damage your property. Let's face it, if you move next door to a plant you know full well is producing emissions, you're accepting what goes with it.

I hate people who want to sue over every little thing. Frankly, you're just looking for an easy pay out here over a non-sense case which would never make it to court.

 

[Evo]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

First you say CO2, then you talk about personal property damage. This thread is making no sense. Closed.