News Can You Sue a Company for CO2 Emissions?

[Opus_723]

This is something I've been wondering about for awhile.

People sue companies for damages all the time in cases of pollution. So I was curious if it would be possible for a group of individuals or organizations to sue a company for damages related to CO2 emissions, such as ocean acidification or climate change? Provided they could show that CO2 emissions were negatively affecting their property financially, could a person be awarded damages?

If not, why? If so, why isn't it happening yet?

I don't know much about law, so this is just a friendly question. Thanks.

 

[Al68]

Sure, why not be able to sue for something that every person and animal who ever lived must do to live (emit CO2)? Now that's a good one.

What we really need to be concerned about is dihydrogen oxide: It's all over the place and kills people by the thousands every year. We should just ban that outright.

 

[Opus_723]

I think that a court could make the distinction between CO2 from fossil fuels and that of the carbon cycle. Provided that distinction was made, I don't think the above would be a concern.

 

[AlephZero]

I think that a court could make the distinction between CO2 from fossil fuels and that of the carbon cycle. Provided that distinction was made, I don't think the above would be a concern.

Fossil fuels are part of the carbon cycle, just like any other dead plant material.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure, why not be able to sue for something that every person and animal who ever lived must do to live (emit CO2)? Now that's a good one.

If you start dumping six tons of CO2 out of your nose every day, yeah, maybe somebody should sue you

 

[Astronuc]

This is something I've been wondering about for awhile.

People sue companies for damages all the time in cases of pollution. So I was curious if it would be possible for a group of individuals or organizations to sue a company for damages related to CO2 emissions, such as ocean acidification or climate change? Provided they could show that CO2 emissions were negatively affecting their property financially, could a person be awarded damages?

If not, why? If so, why isn't it happening yet?

I don't know much about law, so this is just a friendly question. Thanks.

There are many legal problems with that. Firstly, no individual or group owns the ocean, although nations claim certain rights to the ocean within a certain distance of their shoreline.

CO₂ emissions is an on-going legal activity that has been accepted practice for several millenia.

Those sueing have likely produced CO₂ emissions themselves, and have benefitted from those companies who have produced CO₂ emissions.

It's not clear how one would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CO₂ emissions were negatively affecting their property financially, although in a civil case, apparently reasonable doubt is not a necessary requirement.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmmm - perhaps Eric Holder should consider bringing a case against China and India - they have the most live emitters?

 

[russ_watters]

Im pretty sure such lawsuits already exist based on the interstate commerce clause and the Clean Air Act. I'll google when I get home from work...

 

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm - perhaps Eric Holder should consider bringing a case against China and India - they have the most live emitters?

India: 1.4 metric tons per person (2007)
China: 4.9 metric tons per person (2007)
USA: 18.9 metric tons per person (2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

[WhoWee]

India: 1.4 metric tons per person (2007)
China: 4.9 metric tons per person (2007)
USA: 18.9 metric tons per person (2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

From your link - the TOP 10 - (it looks like smaller populations have lower per person ratios)?
"1. Qatar 25.2 36.7 54.3 60.9 58.7 58.6 59.2 65.8 57.0 53.3 56.3 43.2 40.9 41.8 50.5 64.2 49.5 55.4
2. Netherlands Antilles 32.6 26.9 22.6 35.0 34.3 34.1 32.5 34.2 1.5 11.6 31.6 32.2 31.0 30.1 31.3 30.7 29.4 32.5
3. United Arab Emirates 29.4 30.2 29.5 31.1 33.1 30.3 16.9 16.4 34.2 29.0 39.1 33.3 23.3 28.2 28.7 28.3 28.7 31.1
4. Kuwait 19.0 5.1 10.0 16.9 20.8 30.8 28.5 33.8 32.3 31.4 31.9 28.8 26.2 28.9 31.1 33.3 31.1 30.2
5. Bahrain 24.1 22.6 20.1 27.8 27.2 27.7 26.3 28.5 29.6 28.4 30.4 22.7 24.7 25.3 25.4 27.1 28.6 29.6
6. Trinidad and Tobago 13.9 17.1 17.0 13.5 15.8 16.6 17.1 15.0 15.0 17.7 18.9 19.2 20.6 21.2 24.0 23.5 26.1 27.9
7. Aruba 29.1 29.4 25.0 24.3 23.2 22.5 22.1 22.0 19.5 19.3 24.9 24.4 24.1 23.6 23.1 22.9 22.5 23.0
8. Luxembourg 25.9 27.6 30.2 27.3 25.4 20.4 20.4 18.8 17.3 17.8 18.9 19.4 21.0 21.9 24.1 24.4 24.1 22.8
9. Brunei 25.0 22.0 21.4 20.0 18.8 18.7 18.5 18.7 18.8 14.1 19.6 18.2 17.1 16.4 16.7 15.4 14.5 19.8
10. Falkland Islands 18.5 17.9 17.2 16.4 15.7 16.3 17.2 18.1 13.4 13 12.8 15 14.9 16.2 17.2 17.1 19.8 19.7
"

What is your point - I was making a joke.

 

[Jack21222]

It's not clear how one would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CO₂ emissions were negatively affecting their property financially, although in a civil case, apparently reasonable doubt is not a necessary requirement.

I think you'd also have to prove that the defendant's CO2 is the one that was affecting you negatively, and not somebody else's CO2.

 

[Opus_723]

Fossil fuels are part of the carbon cycle, just like any other dead plant material.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I just meant that fossil fuel CO2 is distinctly separate from the ongoing cycle of cellular respiration. It is effectively 'locked out' as far as the atmosphere is concerned, so a legal distinction shouldn't be too hard.

I think you'd also have to prove that the defendant's CO2 is the one that was affecting you negatively, and not somebody else's CO2.

That's a good point. That could be a deal-killer. However, the diffuse nature of climate change may be useful here. Would it be legally sound to show that a given company contributes to global warming, then determine what percentage of it they as a company have caused, and apportion damages based on that?

Obviously, using this method, the amount of damages claimed would be very low for any individual, so it would probably have to be a class action type thing.

Those sueing have likely produced CO2 emissions themselves, and have benefitted from those companies who have produced CO2 emissions.

Almost done quoting, but I thought I'd highlight this so I can explain how I view all of this. Although the plaintiffs likely benefited from the processes that caused the emissions, this isn't about net benefits. It's about redirecting the cost of emissions onto those who emitted. This way companies could pay something approaching (hopefully not exceeding, but I'm not sure how damage awards work) the true cost of the pollution. Any company that emits CO2 could be held accountable, but those who emit little would pay little.

 

[JaredJames]

You have to prove that the person / company you are taking to court has affected you in a negative way.

You can't claim company X caused pollution to the world, therefore I want them to compensate me.

Now, what you are proposing above seems to be a tax, not a case of a company / individual being sued.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you'd also have to prove that the defendant's CO2 is the one that was affecting you negatively, and not somebody else's CO2.

As I alluded to, that can be gotten around by not just suing one company, but suing (in effect) every company by suing a government.

California sued the federal government for not regulating greenhouse gases better:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/31/us-california-emissions-idUSN3044677620080731

And states have sued each other over carbon dioxide reduction on energy purchased across state lines: http://californiawatch.org/dailyrep...re-legal-assault-californias-climate-law-4564

And states have sued power companies directly, which apparently is not up at the USSC for consideration of whether they have the right to do that: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/15/BAAH1IAOQ6.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

 

[Opus_723]

You can't claim company X caused pollution to the world, therefore I want them to compensate me.

Now, what you are proposing above seems to be a tax, not a case of a company / individual being sued.

Why can't you do this? If your property is damaged by warming, and a given company contributed x% of that warming, then can't they be liable for x% of the damage?

Is there a legal reason this isn't possible? I'm honestly just curious.

Also, I think it differs from a tax in that damage has to be proven, the company doesn't pay unless sued, and the money goes to the property owner, not the government.

 

[Drakkith]

Why can't you do this? If your property is damaged by warming, and a given company contributed x% of that warming, then can't they be liable for x% of the damage?

Is there a legal reason this isn't possible? I'm honestly just curious.

Also, I think it differs from a tax in that damage has to be proven, the company doesn't pay unless sued, and the money goes to the property owner, not the government.

Because unless they have violated laws that are already in effect, then they havn't done anything wrong. Not to mention a million other factors like the suing person contributing to the CO2 as well by using electricity, burning gasoline in an engine, smoking a cigerette, ETC.

I can see the government being sued, but not a private company itself. I believe that in general, you have to break some sort of law to be able to be sued. (Or do something like negligence, which CO2 emissions I don't see as being that)

 

[Opus_723]

Because unless they have violated laws that are already in effect, then they havn't done anything wrong. Not to mention a million other factors like the suing person contributing to the CO2 as well by using electricity, burning gasoline in an engine, smoking a cigerette, ETC.

I can see the government being sued, but not a private company itself. I believe that in general, you have to break some sort of law to be able to be sued. (Or do something like negligence, which CO2 emissions I don't see as being that)

If a company can be sued because their hot coffee burnt someone, I think they can be sued for causing property damage through pollution. It's not illegal to make hot coffee either.

As for the suer also being guilty of emitting carbon, I don't see how that's a problem. If a thief gets robbed, that doesn't mean the robber can't be tried. And to nitpick I would point out that using electricity doesn't emit carbon, producing it does. The cigarettes and gasoline are good points, but like I said, I don't think it affects a person's ability to sue.

 

[Drakkith]

Using electricity does, as it makes the generators work harder and consume more fuel. (IE the electricity you use has to be made. Just like the car you use had to be made. Saying that purchasing a car doesn't make CO2 is nonsense, as you ignore the whole process to create it in the first place)

And the hot coffee is an example of negligence in my opinion. That was something that could harm someone. I'd be willing to be that my neighbor could sue me if spilled hot coffee on him.

But suing because of CO2 emissions? Are they breaking the law? Are they harming the environment more than anyone else without a good reason? (Some things require more power or have different circumstances than others that necessitate more CO2)

If they don't have a good reason, or if they aren't following established laws, then sure. If they were venting all of their exhaust through a pipe that spewed it into my back yard, I could probably sue them for that yes. Otherwise I wouldn't think so.

 

[Opus_723]

The company is still producing the electricity and emissions. The customers may increase demand, but the company is creating the product and the emissions. No one forces the company to do so.

It's not about them damaging the environment. I don't see how anyone could sue for that. But if I can show that their pollution is contributing to damage to my property, that's different. You said the burnt coffee lady could sue because the food company's negligence caused her bodily harm. I am arguing that the power company's negligence is also doing harm to my property through pollution. I am pretty sure you can sue for property damage. It doesn't matter if I have a good reason for damaging someone's property, I'm still liable for it.

 

[Drakkith]

Sure, declare what damage the company has done to your property through CO2 emissions, and then have some evidence that it was PRIMARILY the companies fault through negligence or something. It's not about whether you can try to sue someone, its about whether this is likely to actually go through to the court with a likely chance of you winning. Otherwise this whole conversation is a moot point.

The company is still producing the electricity and emissions. The customers may increase demand, but the company is creating the product and the emissions. No one forces the company to do so.

Of course, but YOU are the one purchasing the electricity with the full capability to look up how your electricity is being generated. You are paying them to generate your electricity via the method they have. Don't like it? Find another source of energy or something. You can't purchase something and then complain because the manufacturing process caused some pollution. Not unless it was waaay outside the norm or something.

 

[Opus_723]

Sure, declare what damage the company has done to your property through CO2 emissions, and then have some evidence that it was PRIMARILY the companies fault through negligence or something. It's not about whether you can try to sue someone, its about whether this is likely to actually go through to the court with a likely chance of you winning. Otherwise this whole conversation is a moot point.

I didn't say it would be easy. But you haven't convinced me that it's impossible, or wrong ethically. And if it was attempted successfully, it paves the way for future attempts.

Of course, but YOU are the one purchasing the electricity with the full capability to look up how your electricity is being generated. You are paying them to generate your electricity via the method they have. Don't like it? Find another source of energy or something. You can't purchase something and then complain because the manufacturing process caused some pollution. Not unless it was waaay outside the norm or something.

Morally you might be considered a hypocrite, but the company still caused the emissions voluntarily.

 

[Al68]

If a company can be sued because their hot coffee burnt someone, I think they can be sued for causing property damage through pollution. It's not illegal to make hot coffee either.

And suing a company because their coffee was hot was a frivolous and despicable lawsuit that should have never seen the light of day. For the same reason: the company merely provided what the consumer asked for.

 

[Al68]

If you start dumping six tons of CO2 out of your nose every day, yeah, maybe somebody should sue you

On what basis? Socialist propaganda does not equal evidence.

Can I sue Walmart because they show a smiley face on their commercials? After all, their smiley faces cause cancer. If power hungry politicians repeat that enough times to convince their sheeple ignorant drone constituents that it's true, then can I sue?

 

[Opus_723]

And suing a company because their coffee was hot was a frivolous and despicable lawsuit that should have never seen the light of day. For the same reason: the company merely provided what the consumer asked for.

You're right, the coffee argument doesn't really apply here. The lady bought the coffee, then spilled it on herself. Her fault.

CO2 emissions damage my property even though I have not permitted the company to do this. Their fault.

On what basis? Socialist propaganda does not equal evidence.

Can I sue Walmart because they show a smiley face on their commercials? After all, their smiley faces cause cancer. If power hungry politicians repeat that enough times to convince their sheeple ignorant drone constituents that it's true, then can I sue?

I would hope scientific evidence would be used, rather than propaganda. If you dispute the science, then publish a peer-reviewed report. The merits of climate science claims should be debated by climate scientists, seeing as it's their job.

Also: if you can prove that smiley faces cause cancer, then yes.

The court ruling should follow the evidence. All I need to do is present evidence that CO2 emissions have damaged my property, and that the company I'm suing contributed.

 

[Al68]

The court ruling should follow the evidence. All I need to do is present evidence that CO2 emissions have damaged my property, and that the company I'm suing contributed.

I agree with your logic, but the claim itself is silly. Like the smiley faces causing cancer.

All we currently have is a theory, unproven assertions, advocates caught fudging data, and a known liar claiming that "the debate is over" in a feeble effort to avoid scrutiny.

And a company being sued for something everyone does to some extent. Sure, we might distinguish between human breath and coal stacks, but that distinction evaporates with a claim that CO2 itself is the issue.

 

[Opus_723]

Except the claim has never been that CO2 itself is the issue. The claim is that reintroducing CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is the issue.

Regardless, I'd rather this thread didn't turn into a debate over climate change and ocean acidification itself. I'm interested in whether or not, assuming that the CO2 DID cause damage, this strategy would work to lay the costs on the company causing the damage, rather than the property owner.

 

[Al68]

Regardless, I'd rather this thread didn't turn into a debate over climate change and ocean acidification itself. I'm interested in whether or not, assuming that the CO2 DID cause damage, this strategy would work to lay the costs on the company causing the damage, rather than the property owner.

Even under such an assumption, the company is no more responsible for any wrongful act than the act of purchasing their legal product.

It would not be a case of a company knowing something about a product they were selling that their customers didn't know, so that the company committed a wrongful act but their customers didn't.

Even under an assumption that CO2 caused some specified damage, society at large would be equally liable in a way that would make it impossible to legitimately try to concentrate blame on a single entity, or group of entities.

 

[Opus_723]

I don't agree. The act of buying a product generates no emissions. Only the act of producing the product does. This is entirely a voluntary act on the company's part. They choose to produce more because they profit from it. They don't have to meet demand if they don't want to.

Also, the CO2 that the company emits would damage my property regardless of whether or not I purchase electricity (for example) from them. I could get my electricity from company A, but company B's emissions still do damage to my property. In this case, it makes sense to sue company B.

Finally, even if I get my electricity from company A, property damage is not a condition of that transaction. I may be a hypocrite for buying a product whose creation damaged my property, but I still have the right to sue because I never gave them permission to damage my property. I simply paid for and received a product that they produced voluntarily. Electricity can be produced in many ways, but they chose to do so in a way that damages my property without permission from me.

 

[talk2glenn]

This is the United States, not Brazil.

Tort is based on the common law principle - to sue succesfully, you must show that you were harmed, that the harm was due to negligent and unreasonable conduct, and that the harm resulted in determinable financial loss. The purpose of financial reward is to restore the defendants financial condition to what it was before the loss, not reward the plaintiff or punish the defendant; the exception is punitive damages, where are special rewards in specific cases authorized by statute.

On the matter of CO2 emissions, no plaintiff has a case, for innumerable reasons; such a case would violate every principle of common law tort precedent. Specifically, no plaintiff could show a non-tenuous damage (how does one apportion fault, when no statistician can link specific actions to specific outcomes), that the action was negligent (there is no legislative action informing business conduct with regard to CO2 emissions, or authorizing the judiciary to address these claims; 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), or that the action resulted in determinable financial loss. A hypothetical decline in property values is not a determinable financial loss, or one could sue a neighbor for painting his house a particular color, or a bank for foreclosing on distresssed properties. The defendant must have taken deliberate, direct action that damaged the plaintiff financially. 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.

For a lengthy, professional summation of these issues, see the following motion to dismiss:

http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/motion-to-dismiss-by-electric-utilities.pdf

This motion was subsequently granted without prejudice, with the plaintiffs given the right to refile in state court:

The parties are presently before the Court on various Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In their Rule 12(b)(1) motions, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the political question doctrine, and that Plaintiffs otherwise lack standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter, and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b).

http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/files/kivalina_v_exxonmobi_decisionl.pdf

But the principles are the same; to refile there will simply result in another dismissal. See here for precedent:

http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Comer_v_Murphy_Oil_opinion.pdf

 

[Al68]

I don't agree. The act of buying a product generates no emissions. Only the act of producing the product does.

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.

 

[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.