Climate Change Legal Action

[dhrivnak]

The answer is to grit your teeth and say yes. Democracy is just better than all the other systems that suck.

I agree Democracy is better than other forms of government but having people vote on all bills? That is the part I have my doubts about.

 

[jerry33]

I agree Democracy is better than other forms of government but having people vote on all bills? That is the part I have my doubts about.

I suspect it's better than having lobbyist clauses put in the bills just before the vote. By having everyone vote on them, there would need to be a point where they were fixed in stone and not subject to last minute changes.

 

[CatB]

Back to the original topic, I am skeptical.
it is just appalling that 21 states are using their taxpayer funds to challenge the Chesapeake Bay clean water laws.
All spearheaded by the Fertilizer Inst and Farm Bureau Federation.
We can't even use the law and judicial system to protect our own natural resources (and substantial contributor to our economy, for those who don't care about the environment and our health).

Stand With the Chesapeake Bay!

 

[RichardC]

Back to the original topic, I am skeptical.
it is just appalling that 21 states are using their taxpayer funds to challenge the Chesapeake Bay clean water laws.
All spearheaded by the Fertilizer Inst and Farm Bureau Federation.
We can't even use the law and judicial system to protect our own natural resources (and substantial contributor to our economy, for those who don't care about the environment and our health).

Stand With the Chesapeake Bay!

I too am skeptical, but as a parent and (recently) a grandparent I feel an obligation to try to prevent further unnecessary and avoidable harm and damage to the environmental infrastructure upon which our civilization depends. Beyond that, I believe that the corruption of our social and political systems with misinformation to block intelligent, evidence-based regulatory action is profoundly wrong, both morally and legally. The widespread recognition that all deniers are merely tools (whether advertent or inadvertent) of out-of-control industry interests, would go a long way toward rectifying the broader problem. Legal action against those who are violating existing laws by promulgating lies to advance their business interests could help clear the air of the harmful disinformation that is used to mislead the public.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderator's Note

Let's keep focused on the thread's topic and avoid going off on purely political discussions. Thanks.

 

[RichardC]

The following statements reflect the evolving understanding of the legal basis for imposing liability on fossil fuel companies and their executives:

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ted-claims-could-be-personally-liable---NGOs/

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International's Climate and Energy Campaigner, says the cost of climate change is personal. "It's personal to the victims of super typhoon Haiyan who lost family members and homes in the Philippines. It's personal to farmers in California and Australia whose land is now too dry for farming. It should also be personal for any oil, gas and coal company directors who mislead the public by funding climate denialism and stopping action on climate change. The responsibility – not just the devastating effects – should be personal."

Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law, says from "asbestos to tobacco to oil spills, history shows that those who mislead the public, the market or the government about the risks of their products, or the availability of safer alternatives, can face substantial legal liability, both as companies and as individuals. As the impacts of climate denialism and regulatory obstruction become clear, we want to understand how corporations, insurers, and officers and directors are allocating those risks among themselves. Just as importantly, we ask what steps they're taking to prevent the misconduct that creates those risks in the first place."

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF International's Global Climate and Energy Initiative, says fossil fuel companies owe it to their shareholders and the public to tell us the truth about the devastating impacts of their activities on our shared climate. "Sooner or later, those who hide the facts and oppose policies to fight climate change will be held to account by the courts. By signing this letter, we hope to bring attention to the importance of truthful, transparent and responsible corporate reporting and policy engagement on climate change."

As documented in "Merchants of Doubt", and a number of other books, there are close connections and close parallels between the efforts of the tobacco industry to cover up the health impacts of their products and the climate denial movement.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
http://www.amazon.ca/Merchants-Of-Doubt-Naomi-Oreskes/dp/1596916109

Video of author speaking about the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854

Doubt is Their Product: How Industrys Assault on Science Threatens Your Health: David Michaels: 9780195300673: Books - Amazon.ca

As noted in Bloomberg:

Parallels to Tobacco

Personal liability could become an issue for energy executives if they are found to be involved in misleading the public, the market or the government about the risks of their products or the availability of safer alternatives, he said.
Muffett drew parallels between the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry.
“At heart, you have a product that is fundamentally dangerous, fundamentally damaging to the environment, fundamentally damaging to society, when used as directed,” he said.
Both industries also have been accused of engaging in active campaigns “to confuse, deny, or undermine legitimate science on the impacts of these products,” Muffett said.
But in the tobacco context, the individual plaintiffs were clear, while “one of the problems with climate change is there's so many victims,” he said. As climate science improves to show regional and local level impacts, it could become easier to hold companies responsible for those impacts, Muffett said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...anies-of-liability-over-climate-advocacy.html

The risks and other implications of climate change for the insurance industry are also coming into focus with insurers and the legal community. See: http://www.thenation.com/article/180051/big-carbons-big-liability

That conversation is already well underway in the insurance industry and among the law firms specializing in coverage issues. “Corporations and their management and directors are facing more risks in connection with climate change-related financial disclosures and the potential for shareholder and derivative suits based on alleged climate change-related financial nondisclosures,” wrote two lawyers with Anderson Kill & Olick, an American law firm specializing in insurance issues, in a 2011 article.

See also: http://www.mintpressnews.com/fossil-fuel-execs-questioned-personal-liability-climate-change/192097/

Certainly insurance companies are increasingly being forced to grapple with the broader effects of climate change. Just last month Illinois Farmers Insurance tried to launch a class-action lawsuit against a dozen cities and counties in the state, claiming government officials had ignored the potential impacts of climate change and failed to prepare for related impacts. In this case, those impacts included April 2013 flooding damage that the insurance company then had to cover.

Whether or not the legal actions prevail in the short run, they could still have important impacts in the medium to longer term. As noted in: http://www.thenation.com/article/17...ange-take-fossil-fuel-industry-court?page=0,2

Whether or not a judge ever orders any fossil fuel company to pay for climate change, some environmentalists see the lawsuits as tools to raise public awareness of corporate responsibility for the climate crisis. That could help change the debate from whether it’s the developed or the undeveloped world that should shoulder the costs of giant storms and flooded cities to whether the bill should be paid by the corporations that continued to damage our climate system long after they knew what was happening.

“The anti-tobacco guys lost and lost and lost in court for decades—until they won,” says Kert Davies, who worked on the breakthrough case on behalf of Oakland, Boulder and other cities while a researcher at Greenpeace. “That’s point number one. Plus, advocates like me can say that we don’t care if we win as long as we make a point.
“We want to influence the court of public opinion,” Davies continues. “We have to educate people about the truth after all this industry disinformation. So let the lawsuits produce documents and testimony and all sorts of information for the public. That’s one of their functions. That’s where the tobacco wars were won. Even [Representative Henry] Waxman’s famous tobacco hearings in Congress—the tobacco execs never admitted anything. You didn’t need to get to that. By the time they left the hearing room, they were already pariahs. We’d seen through them.”

Greenpeace has compiled a substantial list of materials which support its theory of liability, as follows: http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...gs/climate/2014/climate-denialism/Annex-A.pdf

Corporate Influence on Climate Science and Policy

Wagner, W.& McGarity, T. O. 2010.
Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-04714-1.

Krauss, C., Mouawad.,J. 2009. Oil industry backs protests of emissions bill.
The New York Times, 18 August 2009. See: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/business/energy-environment/19climate.html?ref=business

Mooney, C. 2005.
The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04675-4.

Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Fight Climate Treaty,
New York Times, 26 April 1998. See: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/781725-nyt-1998-api-global-climate-science-comms-plan.html

Industry’s support of trade associations known to lobby against action on climate change

Jervey, B. 2014. Tricks of the Trade: How Big Polluters Hide Climate Lobbying Behind Trade Groups,
desmogblog.com, 23 January 2014. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/23/tricks-trade-how-big-polluters-hide-climate-lobbying-behind-trade-groups

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2014. Tricks of the Trade - How companies anonymously influence climate policy through their business and trade associations. 8 January 2014. See: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/center-for-science-and-democracy/tricks-of-the-trade.pdf

Goldenberg, S. 2013. Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks,
The Guardian, 14 February 2013, See: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Mashey, J.R. 2012. Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, SEPP, Heartland, CSCDGC, allies&DONORS
desmogbog.com. 14 February 2012. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf

The Centre for Media and Democracy (CMD). 2014. ALEC exposed. See: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC?

The Centre for Media and Democracy (CMD). 2014. ALEC Corporations. See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). 2011. Lobby Planet – Brussels, The EU Quarter. September 2011. See: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/ceolobbylow.pdf

Lane, S. 2011. Industry launches anti-carbon tax campaign.
ABC News, 21 July 2011. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-21/industry-group-steps-up-carbon-ads/2803794

Alliance for a Competitive European Industry (ACEI). 2010. A letter to the Presidents of the European Council, Commission and the Parliament. 21 January 2010. See: http://www.cembureau.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2010-01-21_ACEI_open_letter_on_-30%_climate_change_objective.pdf

The European Steel Association (Eurofer). 2010. European manufacturing industry united against -30% climate change objective, 21 January 2010, See: http://www.eurofer.org/News&Media/P... Industry United .fhtml?&wtd=j34O4sIVVctRkqxn

Funding Climate Change Deniers

Greenpeace USA. 2013. Dealing in doubt. September 2013. See: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science

Fischer, D. 2013. "Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort,
Scientific American, 23 December 2013. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). 2010. Concealing their sources – who funds Europe´s climate change deniers? December 2010. See:
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/de...les/files/article/funding_climate_deniers.pdf

Flannery, T.& Schneider, S. H. 2009.
Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate. Washington, D.C: National Geographic. ISBN 1-4262-0540-6.

Adam, D. 2009. Exxon Mobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show.
The Guardian, 1 July 2009 See: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

Simon, J.S. 2008. Statement of J. Stephen Simon (Senior Vice President of ExxonMobil Corporation) to a hearing (Exploring the skyrocketing price of oil) of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 21 May 2008. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg43354/pdf/CHRG-110shrg43354.pdf

Adam, D. 2005. Oil firms fund climate change ´denial´.
The Guardian, 27 January 2005. See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science

Torcello, L. 2014. Is Organised Climate Science Denial Criminally Negligent?
The Conversation, 13 March 2014. See http://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Climate Science Denial

The Heartland Institute. 2014. 9th International Conference on Climate Change 7-9 July 2014. See: http://heartland.org/events/9th-international-conference-climate-change
Goldenberg. S. 2014. Climate change is good for you, says ultra-conservative Heartland Institute.

The Guardian, 9 April 2014. See: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-report-heartland-institute-debunk-ipcc

Nuccitelli, D. 2014. Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper.
The Guardian, 21 March 2014. See: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction

Greenpeace USA. 2013. Dealing in doubt. September 2013. See: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...he-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/

Goldenberg, S. 2013. Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks,
The Guardian, 14 February 2013. See: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Gillis, J., Kaufman,L. 2012. Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science, The
New York Times, 15 February 2012. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/s...-teaching.html?scp=4&sq=heartland&st=cse&_r=0

Goldenberg, S. 2012. Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science.
The Guardian, 15 February 2012. See: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-institute-climate?guni=Article:in body link

Hickman, L. 2012. Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate skepticism.
The Guardian, 15 February 2012. See: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rtland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism
The original source:
Heartland Institute. 2012. Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy. January 2012. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012 Climate Strategy.pdf

Brown, D.A. 2012. Ethical Analysis of Climate Change Disinformation Campaign.
Climate Progress, 10 January 2012. See: Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign | ThinkProgress Accessed 16 April 2014

Greenpeace USA. 2012. Koch Industries: Still fuelling climate denial. See: www.greenpeace.org/kochindustries

Dunlap, R.E.& McCright, A.M. 2011. Organized climate change denial. In
The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, pp.140-160, edited by J. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-956660-0 See: http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial.302183828.pdf

Washington, H.&Cook, J. 2011. Climate Change Denial, Heads in the Sand. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84971-336-8

Oreskes, N.&Conway, E.M. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN: 978-1-59691-610-4

Hamilton, C. 2010. Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change. Allen & Unwin. pp. 103–105. ISBN 1-74237-210-4

Keyes, S. 2010. Rep. Steve King unloads on climate change scientists: "Frauds" practicing "modern version of the rain dance."
Climate Progress, 18 August 2010. See: http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010...ds-practicingmodern-version-of-the-rain-dance

Hoggan, J.& Littlemore, R. 2009 Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver: Greystone Books. ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8. See, e.g., p31 ff, describing industry-based advocacy strategies in the context of climate change denial, and p73 ff, describing involvement of free-market think tanks in climate-change denial.

Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, R.E.; Freeman, M. 2008. The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism.
Environmental Politics, Volume 17, Issue 3. June 2008. pp.349-385. See: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644010802055576

Leaked 1998 American Petroleum Institute: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan. 3 April 1998. See:
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...can_petroleum_institute_kept_tabs_on_enviros/

Suppression of Climate Activism

Federman, A. 2014. American Petroleum Institute Kept Tabs on Enviros.
Earth Island Journal, 11 February 2014. See: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...can_petroleum_institute_kept_tabs_on_enviros/

Abrams, L. 2013. Wikileaks reveals failed plans to suppress anti-Keystone activists.
Salon, 6 December 2013. See: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/06/wikileaks_reveals_failed_plans_to_suppress_anti_keystone_activists

Greenpeace Africa. 2013. Eskom apologises for spying on NGOs. 12 November 2013. See: http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/News/news/Eskom-apologises-for-spying-on-NGOs/

Federman, A. 2013. The fossil fuel industry’s secret war on environmental activists,
Salon, 8 August 2013, See: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/08/the_fossil_fuel_industrys_secret_war_on_environmental_activists

Industry Quotes on Climate Change

Peabody Energy:
"The greatest crisis society confronts is not a future environmental crisis predicted by computer models but a human crisis today that is fully within our power to solve . . . with coal."

Senior Vice President of ExxonMobil, J. Stephen Simon, 2008
"In other words, that we are supporting junk science and trying to make people think that this is not an issue. I think all of us recognize it is an issue. It is how we deal with it—and I think we are dealing with it, and we are doing so in a responsible fashion."

The Heartland Institute, 2014
"Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading scientists from around the world who question whether "man-made global warming" will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming."

ExxonMobil, Corporate Citizenship Report, 2007
"In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."5

ExxonMobil, Report on "Tomorrow's Energy", 2006
"The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere poses risks that may prove significant for society and ecosystems." But on the same page, it said that "gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate change might be the result of human actions."

 

[brianman]

The potential roles for the legal system in combatting climate change and related malfeasance are legion, and have been touched upon in a number of threads. Some options could include:

• Actions demanding that states, such as New York, New Jersey and Louisiana use their parens patriae powers to bring claims against those who are principal contributors to climate change (and potentially to the disinformation campaigns that facilitate the continuing emissions).
• Demands that the FTC and states use their extensive investigative powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act (and the corresponding provisions in state laws) to pursue those promulgating denier disinformation.
• Actions pursue information about inappropriate campaign contributions and other similar activities under various campaign finance, freedom of information and lobbyist registration laws.
• Demand that the SEC investigate the adequacy of the disclosure by fossil fuel companies of their indirect contributions to denier organizations.
• Securities law actions under Rule 10b-5 claims for material non-disclosure relating to either inadequate treatment of climate change risks to enterprise value or the support of denier activities.

Any thoughts?

Terrifying.

When those that "declare what's true" have the power to call others "deniers" and apply penalties or punishments on that basis, we might as well remove the first amendment entirely.

 

[Auzie]

The abject failures of our national and international political institutions to take effective action to protect our children and grandchildren from the dangers of man-made global warming requires pursuit of alternative strategies. Hence the need to explore the creative use of the legal system as a source of potential remedies.
Any thoughts?

I have difficulties seeing possibilities to achieve meaningful legislative changes that protect the environment outside of political institutions. They hold the keys to legislative changes.

Political institutions are unlikely to use their scarce political capital on what they perceive as marginal issues. People focus their voting preferences based on issues such as taxation, economy, health, immigration, less so on environmental issues.

Perhaps effective way of driving the desired legislative change is public pressure and making the desired change a winning rather than a losing game for legislators.

Legal institutions can help with enforcing compliance with the current legislation. I think that issuing fines for non-compliance to corporations is not as effective as holding executives personally liable for corporate transgressions.

 

[jerry33]

Legal institutions can help with enforcing compliance with the current legislation. I think that issuing fines for non-compliance to corporations is not as effective as holding executives personally liable for corporate transgressions.

Right. The fines are generally not even a slap on the wrist to most corporations.

Because the Supreme Court has inferred that corporations are people, the penalties should be the similar. For example: 30 days in jail (person) 30 days where your products can't be sold or when any advertising can be done (corporation). A person who is in jail can't make any income* or freely talk to anyone--why should corporations be exempt?

* Directly from employment. Doesn't count the few rich folks in jail who make money from investments.

 

[RichardC]

Terrifying.

When those that "declare what's true" have the power to call others "deniers" and apply penalties or punishments on that basis, we might as well remove the first amendment entirely.

Brianman, this topic (and the reason that ordinary course law enforcement does not raise any credible first amendment issues) has been extensively discussed on the Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change thread. For example:

From my perspective, since denialism is a wholly artificial phenomena, which has been foisted on the public by slick marketing tactics and the expenditure of billions of dollars, solely to advance the commercial interests of a small (but highly profitable) industry at the expense of innocent members of the public (and most particularly future generations), references to "free speech" are nothing more than a smokescreen. The artificially fostered impression of "doubt" allows the industry (aided and abetted by their well-paid PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians) to continue to impose harm on present and future generations in the complete absence of rational public interest regulation.

To be clear, apart from said PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians (and various uninformed members of the public who have taken in by their disinformation campaigns) there is no debate about the reality and the seriousness of the man-made global warming problem).

• Practicing, publishing climate scientists overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus (latest estimates range from 97% to 99%)
• Science academies and recognized science associations of all types universally, and without exception, accept and do not dispute the scientific consensus.
• National governments all accept the scientific consensus about the problem and the need to keep the resulting temperature increase below 2 degrees C.
• Even the major oil companies (who have the most to lose) acknowledge the reality of the scientific consensus.

I have been actively involved in discussions with hundreds of individuals and have yet to hear any plausible argument or theory which casts any significant doubt on the compelling scientific theory and evidence.

As previously discussed, there is no such thing as a "free speech" defense to the charges and claims which may and should result from knowingly misleading the public to advance commercial interests.

I find the prospect of bringing charges (under existing laws) against the individuals and organizations who are knowing engaged in such conduct to be an interesting one. As much for the fact that the individuals involved in such misconduct need to clearly understand that they are acting illegally and are doing wrong, as for the charges themselves. There needs to be a massive sea change in public opinion if we are turn this problem around. The enforcement of existing laws against the miscreants who are stealing our children's futures by knowingly disseminating falsehoods about climate change to advance business interests could be a step in the right direction. As has been seen in other contexts, the public naming and shaming of a few high profile individuals could have some salutary effects.

- - - Updated - - -

I have difficulties seeing possibilities to achieve meaningful legislative changes that protect the environment outside of political institutions. They hold the keys to legislative changes.

Political institutions are unlikely to use their scarce political capital on what they perceive as marginal issues. People focus their voting preferences based on issues such as taxation, economy, health, immigration, less so on environmental issues.

Perhaps effective way of driving the desired legislative change is public pressure and making the desired change a winning rather than a losing game for legislators.

Legal institutions can help with enforcing compliance with the current legislation. I think that issuing fines for non-compliance to corporations is not as effective as holding executives personally liable for corporate transgressions.

I completely agree, which is the reason that those spending billions of dollars to pollute and subvert the public policy discussion against the public interest need to be held legally accountable for their actions, as described in greater detail above and summarized in:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
http://www.amazon.ca/Merchants-Of-Doubt-Naomi-Oreskes/dp/1596916109

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854

Doubt is Their Product: How Industrys Assault on Science Threatens Your Health: David Michaels: 9780195300673: Books - Amazon.ca

 

[RichardC]

Right. The fines are generally not even a slap on the wrist to most corporations.

Because the Supreme Court has inferred that corporations are people, the penalties should be the similar. For example: 30 days in jail (person) 30 days where your products can't be sold or when any advertising can be done (corporation). A person who is in jail can't make any income* or freely talk to anyone--why should corporations be exempt?

* Directly from employment. Doesn't count the few rich folks in jail who make money from investments.

Jerry, a number of legal commentators and law review authors agree with you. For example see: http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1056

False Profits: Reviving the Corporation’s Public Purpose

For much of the twentieth century, corporations pursued a simple strategy: maximize shareholder wealth. This strategy led to significant gains for shareholders, but too often came at the expense of the public. This dynamic was on display in the past two years, as high-risk financial instruments brought down the global economy. These instruments, including credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities, offered significant profit potential, but as we now know, they also posed a serious risk to the economy. Indeed, many of these instruments failed, doomed numerous firms, and contributed to a recession. As world economies seek to rebound, the time is right to reform corporate law to address the singular focus on profits that has imperiled so many corporations and economies.

In this Essay, I propose that directors and officers reaffirm a duty to consider the public impact of corporate decisions. In doing so, they must refrain from corporate acts that impose a significant risk on the public. Aside from specific regulations, nothing in corporate law forces corporations to consider the negative macroeconomic consequences of their decisions. True to corporate law history and doctrine, I propose a corporate public duty that maintains commercial pursuits as the primary purpose of the corporation, but restrains the corporation from acts detrimental to the public. Under this conception, many of the destructive acts of recent years may have been averted.

CONCLUSION
Whether or not this formulation of the corporate public duty ever sees the light of day, its principles still have value as legislators consider reform. The notion that the corporation is merely an entity with no connection to the public interest is simply mistaken and has proven quite destructive. Too often, this conception of the corporation has resulted in activities—such as those recently undertaken by AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, and others—whose repercussions extend beyond individual corporations and harm the greater economy. These acts of financial impropriety have rippled throughout the world, leaving businesses underwater and millions of people out of work and out of their homes. In the wake of the financial meltdown, imposing upon corporations a duty to consider the macroeconomic and social impact of their actions is wholly appropriate.

See also: http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5971&context=lalrev

Green Business: Should We Revoke Corporate Charters for Environmental Violations?

CONCLUSION

Corporate law provides business with many advantages, but requires little from its primary beneficiaries, the shareholders. Is the corporate form a shield to protect shareholders from illegal behavior? Many corporate constituents and investors agree that corporate structure promotes social and environmental irresponsibility. They demand that corporations be more environmentally-sensitive. Past attempts by the government to penetrate the corporate structure regarding environmental matters have been widely ineffective. Many institutional investors believe that better corporate environmental performance will mean greater corporate profits. Some companies themselves believe that integrating environmental concerns into their business strategy makes good business sense, leading to competitive advantage.

One radical approach to corporate environmental irresponsibility raises the corporate law question: Should a state revoke a corporation's charter for environmental violations? Academically, there are many reasons for a state to do so. First, it sends a strong compliance message. Second, it makes shareholders personally liable for environmental violations. Third, it puts corporate assets in a state's hands. In reality, revocation of a corporation's charter is extremely rare. And if it were used, corporations would likely dissolve their United States corporate charters and choose to incorporate in a country more tolerant of corporate misbehaviour.

Faced with heightened corporate visibility following Sarbanes-Oxley's passage, U.S. corporations are well advised to seek and employ a proactive approach to environmental protection and disclosure. One recommended approach is the adoption of a Model Code of Corporate Environmental Principles, as a supplement to theAmerican Law Institute's Principles of Corporate Governance. Corporate Environmental Principles are an important attempt to create a model code of conduct, one driven by legal compliance and responsive to shareholders concerns. Its voluntary nature will allow companies to experiment and find the right mix. Its specific principles and Board of Director's involvement can assure its systemic impact on corporate environmental behavior. It quiets environmental critics who wish to strip the corporations and its shareholders of the benefits of corporate status due to environmental violations. Finally, it avoids general shareholder exposure for corporate environmental liabilities should corporate status be taken away.

and: http://www.redorbit.com/news/busine...s_asked_to_revoke_massey/#1UkzG2WCwhRGc7U0.99 and http://appvoices.org/resources/FSFP-APPVOICES-letter-to-AG-Biden-060811.pdf

Atty. Gen. Beau Biden, Delaware Courts Asked to Revoke Massey Energy’s Corporate Charter
WASHINGTON, June 8, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — In the wake of a new independent report on the Upper Big Branch mine disaster in West Virginia that killed 29 coal miners on April 5, 2010, two public interest organizations have asked Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden to investigate Massey Energy Company and initiate an action to revoke its corporate charter. The groups, Free Speech For People and Appalachian Voices, released a letter they delivered today to Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden urging that he investigate Massey Energy following the report, which determined that the April 2010 explosion was preventable and was caused by the company’s pattern of disregarding safety laws and undermining law enforcement. Massey Energy, the fourth largest coal company in the country, is chartered in the State of Delaware.
“We respectfully urge you to investigate whether, as seems clear, Massey Energy Company and its subsidiary corporations have forfeited the privilege of their corporate charters,” the groups state in their letter to Attorney General Biden.

and: http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/01/jailing-climate-deniers-robert-kennedy-jr/

Jailing Climate Deniers

I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty. This can be accomplished through an existing legal proceeding known as “charter revocation.” State Attorneys General can invoke this remedy whenever corporations put their profit-making before the “public welfare.”
In 1998, New York State’s Republican Attorney General, Dennis Vacco successfully invoked the “corporate death penalty” to revoke the charters of two non-profit tax-exempt tobacco industry front groups, The Tobacco Institute and the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR). The two groups Vacco annulled were creatures of a decade long campaign funded principally by tobacco giant, Brown & Williamson to avoid costly health regulations that would diminish the profit margins of an industry that was killing one out of five of its customers. “Doubt is our Product,” explained Brown & Williamson’s notorious 1969 memo outlining the reptilian communications strategy that hatched its front groups.
Vacco complained that these companies were “[feeding] the public a pack of lies in an underhanded effort to promote smoking so as to addict America’s kids.” Attorney General Vacco seized their assets and distributed them to public institutions.

and: http://www.corporatecrimereporter.c...-by-revoking-charters-of-corporate-criminals/

 

[Eclectic]

Terrifying.

When those that "declare what's true" have the power to call others "deniers" and apply penalties or punishments on that basis, we might as well remove the first amendment entirely.

Amen. As a lawyer (and one who has practiced before the US Supreme Court recently), I'm somewhat shocked by the things being said in this thread. Calling for what is in essence the suppression of speech because one believes that the other party is wrong is something I hope no court in this country would ever facilitate. Seeking damages for actual harm caused is certainly fair game, and the legal system definitely allows for that. The hurdle, of course, is proving that an act caused damage. Rather than have the government investigate "deniers", those who call for such investigations should bear the cost of initiating the litigation, and proving the case.

If the case is so clear, as many here seem to believe, then the victory in court will provide ample compensation for the private party to litigate the matter. I certainly don't want my tax dollars being spent to prosecute those who believe things that offend others.

But based on my background, I'm confident that no court would provide the relief that is being suggested in this thread, and the only thing that would be accomplished would be creating a huge litigation defense bill to the persons targeted, effectively bankrupting them through government inquest even without a finding of fault or harm caused.

That is not the legal system that I have sworn to uphold.

 

[Thumper]

Overdue: As in, The Cubs are overdue for a pennant! It does not follow that the Cubs will win a pennant.

 

[Auzie]

Amen. As a lawyer (and one who has practiced before the US Supreme Court recently), I'm somewhat shocked by the things being said in this thread. Calling for what is in essence the suppression of speech because one believes that the other party is wrong is something I hope no court in this country would ever facilitate. Seeking damages for actual harm caused is certainly fair game, and the legal system definitely allows for that. The hurdle, of course, is proving that an act caused damage. Rather than have the government investigate "deniers", those who call for such investigations should bear the cost of initiating the litigation, and proving the case.

If the case is so clear, as many here seem to believe, then the victory in court will provide ample compensation for the private party to litigate the matter. I certainly don't want my tax dollars being spent to prosecute those who believe things that offend others.

But based on my background, I'm confident that no court would provide the relief that is being suggested in this thread, and the only thing that would be accomplished would be creating a huge litigation defense bill to the persons targeted, effectively bankrupting them through government inquest even without a finding of fault or harm caused.

That is not the legal system that I have sworn to uphold.

I am not a lawyer, but I agree with the spirit of this post.

People are often misinformed, uneducated, unguided and act accordingly. My preference would be that governments use taxpayers money on education and enforcing compliance with the existing Environment Protection Acts rather than on investigating and prosecuting people based on their misguided beliefs.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Brianman, this topic (and the reason that ordinary course law enforcement does not raise any credible first amendment issues) has been extensively discussed on the Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change thread. For example:

I agree with you 100% Richard. To this concern I would like to report a your sentence took from the above mentioned thread.

Free speech is not a concept that can be used to defend the making of false and misleading statements to advance a commercial interest (which conduct would clearly violate the laws of any civilized country).

- - - Updated - - -

@ecletic

I am not a lawyer and for this reason I cannot make any comment to your legal arguments but I only would like to point out that the Climate Change/Global Warming issue is considered a threat bigger than terrorism from the U.S. Department Defense. Under these circumstances climate skeptics are to be considered subversive IMO.

 

[jerry33]

Amen. As a lawyer (and one who has practiced before the US Supreme Court recently), I'm somewhat shocked by the things being said in this thread. Calling for what is in essence the suppression of speech because one believes that the other party is wrong is something I hope no court in this country would ever facilitate. Seeking damages for actual harm caused is certainly fair game, and the legal system definitely allows for that. The hurdle, of course, is proving that an act caused damage. Rather than have the government investigate "deniers", those who call for such investigations should bear the cost of initiating the litigation, and proving the case.

I agree that in almost all cases, those who start litigation should bear the cost, but since lawyers work on commission, anyone can sue for anything without substantial costs.

And yes, I don't want the government investigating suspected deniers--I do want them monitoring corporations for ecological damages--but they already monitor everyone that uses a cellphone or the internet and investigate individuals without due process, so I don't see this being any different. And yes, this is not the legal system I want either, but it's the system we appear to have--whether we admit it or not.

 

[Eclectic]

I agree that in almost all cases, those who start litigation should bear the cost, but since lawyers work on commission, anyone can sue for anything without substantial costs.

And yes, I don't want the government investigating suspected deniers--I do want them monitoring corporations for ecological damages--but they already monitor everyone that uses a cellphone or the internet and investigate individuals without due process, so I don't see this being any different. And yes, this is not the legal system I want either, but it's the system we appear to have--whether we admit it or not.

If you think that "anyone can sue for anything without substantial costs" then I suggest you place a call to any litigator and ask them to file a suit against a denier. A law firm will make a very deliberative choice in whether to accept a case on a "commission" basis and won't take the case unless they are confident that there will be a positive outcome that results in payment of their fees.

To wit, the typical big firm lawyer is going to bill out well over $500 an hour. Consider all of the document review and depositions and motions that will have to be filed in a typical case. You're talking hundreds of thousands in costs, at a minimum. The attorneys working on the case will be paid (not the $500 per hour the firm bills, but a very substantial amount nonetheless).

So for anyone who thinks that suing climate change deniers is such a sure thing, I encourage you to contact a law firm and ask if they'll take the case. If you pay all costs, they probably will. If you want to work with them on "commission", I suspect the number of firms that will accept the case will be close to zero. And any firm that would take the case "on commission" will likely provide the quality of legal services commensurate with their fees....

Anyone who really wants to hold "deniers" accountable should spend his or her time documenting the damages that are actually caused by the deniers, in a manner that could be used in court to establish culpability and liability. That's how you win a case.

 

[jerry33]

If you think that "anyone can sue for anything without substantial costs" then I suggest you place a call to any litigator and ask them to file a suit against a denier. A law firm will make a very deliberative choice in whether to accept a case on a "commission" basis and won't take the case unless they are confident that there will be a positive outcome that results in payment of their fees.

I'm not in favour of suing deniers because you shouldn't be able to sue someone for an opinion. You're certainly correct about that. I am in favour of going after companies that do actual harm--although that should be the government's job. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that. However, every day I see billboards with "Have an accident? Call us, no up front fee."

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@jerry and ecletic

I would like to say that, of course, by Climate Skeptics we didn't mean the average person having his own position but we always meant political people and firms making propaganda on the media about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. We don't want to punish people for their opinions (in this case ecletic would be right) but we want punish Climate Skeptics for spreading purposly misinformation concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue on the media for their own economical and/or political interests.

 

[Auzie]

@jerry and ecletic

I would like to say that, of course, by Climate Skeptics we didn't mean the average person having his own position but we always meant political people and firms making propaganda on the media about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. We don't want to punish people for their opinions (in this case ecletic would be right) but we want punish Climate Skeptics for spreading purposly misinformation concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue on the media for their own economical and/or political interests.

We all want the truth to prevail. Maybe people differ in their opinion how best to get there, but eventually all roads lead to Rome :smile:

My personal opinion on choosing the best road is that punishing people is far less effective than educating them.