Climate Change Legal Action

[nwdiver]

I would just add to above, any efforts to promote transparency will be far more efficient that any lawsuits. Transparency renders lawsuits almost obsolete.

Hmmm.... have you met Homo sapien? 'Cause this is still a thing...

Ignorance and stupidity trump transparency. Stopping misinformation also needs to be part of the solution.

 

[Auzie]

Hmmm.... have you met Homo sapien? 'Cause this is still a thing...

Ignorance and stupidity trump transparency. Stopping misinformation also needs to be part of the solution.

Then what is lacking is education. Education deals with ignorance. Stupidity - that is just a consequence of a lack of opportunities for development.

 

[nwdiver]

Then what is lacking is education. Education deals with ignorance. Stupidity - that is just a consequence of a lack of opportunities for development.

Agreed.... but it's usually a good idea to treat the symptoms AND the disease. Especially when it's a chronic disease...

 

[RichardC]

I would just add to above, any efforts to promote transparency will be far more efficient that any lawsuits. Transparency renders lawsuits almost obsolete.

Perhaps in the old opaque world in which access to information was controlled and monopolized by select gatekeepers, it might have been more sensible approach to pursue the truth in the way you describe.

I just think that the world is becoming more and more transparent by the day, thanks to technological innovations. The transparency is the most efficient way of weeding out undesirable behaviors. People do not speed if they know there is a speed camera on the road.

The transparency is galloping into our lives whether we want it or not.

Public pressure is much easier to mobilize now, with connected devices, to correct undesirable behaviour. Check Rupert Murdoch's Twitter account for an example of public voice counteracting his rubbish broadcasts. In this case, he did not lie, he was just himself and Twitterati's dished it to him. That was unimaginable just few decades ago.

Auzie,

That is all great in theory (and I am all in favour of transparency) but doesn't address the fundamental problem of dark money funded astroturf groups filling the media channels (see Fox News and other examples previously referred to) with denier disinformation. There is no way that "transparency" is going to fix this problem. Most of the public is going to hear that there is an argument for action on climate change and that there is a lot of noise and confusion to the contrary, and will take no action. That has been the industry / denier playbook for the past 30 years and it is working very, very well. As noted on: http://one-blue-marble.com/climate-change-denial-industry.html

This climate change debate has become a story of citizen journalism gone awry, for the blogosphere is littered with amateur writers who have been duped into fighting against global warming by slick web sites with official-sounding names like the Science and Public Policy Institute and the Friends of Science. There you will find "climate scientists" who spout all manner of opinion that muddies the global warming waters. But if you did deeper, you’ll find that SPPI — and their ilk — are sponsored by oil companies who borrowed the tobacco industry’s guidebook. Their experts aren’t experts; they either pocket oil industry money, or they can't publish their work in respected scientific journals.

As noted on http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/07/astroturfing-a-major-challenge-to-climate-change/ research has confirmed that the millions spent by industry groups on disinformation disseminated through astroturf sites is in fact having the desired impacts (namely, introducing enough uncertainty to block action on climate change). The Abstract described the study as follows: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...--b12mb7_Q3vXK0V0mx3taQ&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw

We conduct an experiment to determine whether astroturf organizations’ websites impact the level of user certainty about the causes of global warming. Results show that people who used astroturf websites became more uncertain about the existence of global warming and humans’ role in the phenomenon than people who used the grassroots website. Astroturf organizations are hence successful in their promotion of business interests over environmental protection. Aside from the multiple business ethics issues it raises, the astroturfing strategy poses a significant threat to the legitimacy of the grassroots movement.

The public confusion caused by coordinated campaigns implemented using teams of denier trolls to refute and rebut any reasonable discussion of climate change is discussed in: http://theconversation.com/astroturfing-the-climate-wars-five-ways-to-spot-a-troll-19011 as follows:

It is the online forums associated with mainstream, public and alternative media - such as the one waiting for you at the end of this article - that comprise the guerilla battlefronts of the climate wars. What is spiking in these forums at the moment - including right here at The Conversation - is a new kind of astroturfing.

Astroturfing is traditionally understood as the manufacture of a grassroots movement that is totally fake. Such synthetic grass was first cultivated in the US by the Tea Party, which would bankroll the hiring of flash-mob protesters and the swarming of news sites with the intention of drowning out discussion, and replacing it with a Tea Party ideology.

Today, astroturfing is not about creating the image of a unified grassroots movement, but rather the training of scores of individual crusaders to go out and crash blogs in online news sites. As such, it is an almost exclusively online affair, where participants are known as “trolls”. Trolls are supposed to look like they are acting independently, but it is alleged that they are co-ordinated largely by conservative think-tanks, like the IPA and Menzies House, the latter founded and funded by Cory Bernardi.

Bernardi, who was once Tony Abbott’s shadow parliamentary secretary, also founded the Conservative Leadership Foundation, to recruit young, digitally native volunteers. Bernardi has also used online media to attack windfarms and has twice been invited to speak to the sceptical extremists of the astroturf-friendly Heartland Institute in Chicago.

In Australia, the astroturfers are well organised, and were particularly active on Crikey last year, The Drum on the ABC, and are currently targeting The Conversation. For example, on climate change, Monash University metrics of Conversation authors show that the two authors who have attracted the most comments have both written substantially on climate change politics, and of these articles more than 45% of the comments could be identified as being from trolls.

In relation to global warming discussions, astroturfers hide behind their anonymity in making remarks, and will not make comments that give away their identity. They are lurkers whose brief is to watch the site intently, ready to strike - which is precisely why they are called trolls, some of whom have multiple personas.

Further information about the manner in which astroturf organizations and trolls use the transparency and anonymity to completely subvert and derail public policy action in North America and Australia may be found in the following:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.desmogblog.com/science-astroturfing
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...overs-astroturf-campaign-challenge-us-climate
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...astroturf-rallies-against-climate-change-bill
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-largest-pr-firm-in-the-world-promotes-climate-change-denial
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1xlu49/astroturfing_works_and_its_a_major_challenge_to/
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/global-warming-skeptics.aspx/astroturf-overview

My review of the above materials have strengthened my views as to the benefits of legal actions to pursue those causing harm to the environment and our children`s future. 30 years after the problem was clearly understood by the scientific community, oil, gas and coal continue to be produced and burnt in increasing quantities, with no recognition of the environmental harm thereby caused, and blatant denial is becoming increasingly prevalent in US politics. As the IPCC has increasingly clearly documented, we are now out of time, and no real and serious action is being taken in North America.

At the risk of restating the obvious, this is not an idle academic or political discussion, people are dying on a daily basis as a direct result of climate change and the problems are getting worse at an increasing rate. Current and upcoming impacts include the following:

1. Flooding - Heavy rainfall, expected to worsen as climate change progresses, swells rivers and leads to extreme flooding events, such as those experienced in 2008 and 2013 throughout Europe. Such events have resulted in loss of life and damaging economic impacts; the floods of June 2013 led to an estimated €12 billion in economic losses across nine EU Member States. These costs stress the resources of both insurers and governments. The U.S. has sustained 170 weather/climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2013). The total cost of these 170 events exceeds $1 trillion. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/372na7_en.pdf and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
2. Hurricanes and typhoons - The first decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s – and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change. The bottom line: natural disasters are occurring nearly five times as often as they were in the 1970s. But some disasters – such as floods and storms – pose a bigger threat than others. Flooding and storms are also taking a bigger bite out of the economy. But heat waves are an emerging killer. See: Eight ways climate change is making the world more dangerous | Environment | The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/14/8-charts-climate-change-world-more-dangerous
3. Drought - There is strong scientific opinion that the frequency and severity of droughts are increasing. The Prairie droughts of 1979 cost $3.4-billion, and droughts in the 1980s cost more than $10-billion. The droughts of the 1990s, from a meteorological perspective, were more serious than those of the 1930s, and the droughts from 2001 to 2004 were severe and widespread. If current production systems, insurance and government programs are insufficient to sustain profitable agriculture in a variable climate at the moment, what's the prospect under future climate change? Recent U.S. droughts have been the most expansive in decades. At the peak of the 2012 drought, an astounding 81 percent of the contiguous United States was under at least abnormally dry conditions, resulting in an estimated $30 billion in damages. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/eventsClimate change increases the odds of worsening drought in many regions of the U.S. and the world in the decades ahead. See: Climate change in the land of great drought - The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-in-the-land-of-great-drought/article4278159/ and Drought and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/extreme-weather/drought
4. Starvation - Millions of people could become destitute in Africa and Asia as staple foods more than double in price by 2050 as a result of extreme temperatures, floods and droughts that will transform the way the world farms. Climate change is expected to lower grain yields and raise crop prices across the developing world, leading to a 20-percent rise in child malnutrition, a new study finds. See: Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists | Global development | The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...climate-change-millions-starvation-scientists and Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger, Study Says | Worldwatch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6271
5. Forest fires - U.S. wildfires cost as much as $125 billion annually and the current scientific consensus is that wildfire risk will increase in many regions of the world as climate change leads to warmer temperatures, more frequent droughts, and changing precipitation patterns. Fires are expected to become more frequent and intense, and fire seasons are projected to last longer as a result of climate change. The last few years have seen unprecedented losses of human life as well as valuable forests. For example see: LA Times http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-wildfires-budget-climate-change-20140513-story.html and http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Forestry.pdf
6. Sea Level rise - A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry. By 2050—without adaptation—the losses from coastal flooding globally are projected to rise to $US1 trillion per year, ... By 2100 the losses from coastal flooding are projected to be 0.3–9.3% of global GDP per year. The high-end projection is a scenario for global economic collapse. See: Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html?_s=PM:TECH and http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/56812f1261b168e02032126342619dad.pdf
7. Species extinction - Climate change alone is expected to threaten with extinction approximately one quarter or more of all species on land by the year 2050, surpassing even habitat loss as the biggest threat to life on land. Under a "business as usual" scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions aren't significantly reduced, about 50 percent of plants and one-third of animals are likely to vanish from half of the places they are now found by 2080, ... See: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment http://www.chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss and Climate Change Could Cause Widespread Species Loss | Global Warming Effects http://www.livescience.com/31934-climate-change-reduces-animals-range.html
8. Loss of permafrost -Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists. Governments and industry have expected the widespread warming of the Arctic region in the past 20 years to be an economic boon, allowing the exploitation of new gas and oilfields and enabling shipping to travel faster between Europe and Asia. But the release of a single giant "pulse" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea "could come with a $60tn [£39tn] global price tag", according to the researchers who have for the first time quantified the effects on the global economy. It seems highly likely that the Arctic as we know it will disappear soon. By the end of this young century, a 30-70% decline in temperatures will ensure that permafrost, for example will disappear from gigantic areas of our North. Microbial decomposition of the preserved material in this soil will proceed at a comparable rate. Read more at Climate change and permafrost loss | Climate | The Earth Times http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/climate-change-permafrost-loss/2572/ and see:Rapid Arctic thawing could be economic timebomb, scientists say | Environment | The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change
9. Economic and health impacts - Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. See: Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds | Environment | The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
10. Breakdowns of security and war - Last month the Pentagon released a landmark report declaring climate change an "immediate risk" to national security and outlining how it intends to protect bases, prepare for humanitarian disasters and plan for global conflicts. Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today—from infectious disease to armed insurgencies—and to produce new challenges in the future. See: Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming - Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...to-national-security-posed-by-global-warming/ and the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

 

[Raffy.Roma]

1. Breakdowns of security and war - Last month the Pentagon released a landmark report declaring climate change an "immediate risk" to national security and outlining how it intends to protect bases, prepare for humanitarian disasters and plan for global conflicts. Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today—from infectious disease to armed insurgencies—and to produce new challenges in the future. See: Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming - Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...to-national-security-posed-by-global-warming/ and the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

Would like to point this paragraph of the post of my TMC friend Richard.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to add noise to the signal coming from scientists working to understand how human activity is interacting with the climate. The result is that a typical person doesn't hear the signal. This wouldn't be a big deal if "the answer" were some magic bullet that a central institution could fire. Every plausible strategy to reduce carbon emissions dramatically enough to avoid the worst of the catastrophic changes that seem to be the most likely outcomes of our current course, however, requires concerted action.

We waste a huge amount of energy: residential and commercial sector wastes about 65% of power, and industrial losses are about 80%. If every householder and business owner took basic steps to reduce this waste, industrialized countries could drastically reduce their carbon emissions. Such changes will only occur if there is widespread consensus that we face a real problem that deserves collective action.

During the Battle of Britain, every householder needed to install blackout curtains. Even a few 'bomber deniers' could have threatened the welfare of an entire city. Fortunately the evidence of German bombers was very clear, and the personal threat immediate, so compliance was near-absolute. What we lack today on the climate front is the same sense of urgency and immediacy, due in large part to the unchecked activities of well-funded groups to drown out the sound of the incoming bombs.

 

[RichardC]

Thanks Raffy and Robert,

It is my perspective that industry-funded denier disinformation may well be the single factor which makes the difference between the implementation in North America and Australia of sane and rational public policies to smoothly transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy, and the alternative of continuing with the business-as-usual approach leading to the well documented outcomes which seemed destined to cost hundreds of millions of lives and to bequeath a literal hell on earth to our grandchildren. The end-game of this scenario is described in: The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway. See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K33E4J2/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=thecalvinbookshe&linkId=SQV3J52EBMUKDQWE
I have done enough research on this subject to know that it accurately reflects the current scientific thinking on the broad outlines of the future we are currently headed toward.

My New Year`s wish list for the readers of this thread is as follows:

1. Read The Collapse of Western Civilization, educate others about the problem and give away copies of the book to friends and family. (It is a short book and an easy read.)
   
2. If you are an attorney (or lawyer) give some thought to alternative legal theories under which those who are, to advance industry interests, intentionally misleading the public about the scientific reality of AGW could be pursued. In addition to the potential options outlined at http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/39978-Climate-Change-Legal-Action?p=851292#post851292 a review of the tobacco litigation suggests that RICO might also be applicable. Please post any thoughts on this thread. Also consider how light can be shed on the identity of those contributing to climate denial efforts through various ``dark money`` channels.
   
3. For those who have knowledge of the actual mechanics of the lobbying, PR and astroturfing activities which are being used to mislead the public, please share such knowledge and information on this thread. Shedding daylight on those seeking to conceal their misdeeds in darkness can only help the cause.
   
4. Use your own purchasing power to help drive the change that you want to see. I decided, five years ago, that we would not purchase any further fossil fuel burning products, and have found it very easy (with the Model S, heat pumps for HVAC and hot water, green power and a variety of electrically powered devices) to live increasingly fossil fuel free.
   
5. Make climate change a key political issue in campaigns at all levels and let those in the denier camp know that you disagree and will be actively seeking to defeat them on that basis. Engage and educate. There is a wealth of information on this site and in the Climate Change thread.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

What we lack today on the climate front is the same sense of urgency and immediacy

Great post Robert. I also would like to point out this sentence of your post because you got the main point of the Climate/Change issue IMO.

 

[RichardC]

Further examples of the results of unconstrained industry efforts to disseminate disinformation:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/02/koch-funded-news-outlet-defends-dark-money-orga/201996

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/30/the-11-dumbest-things-conservative-media-said-a/201964

 

[Auzie]

What we lack today on the climate front is the same sense of urgency and immediacy, due in large part to the unchecked activities of well-funded groups to drown out the sound of the incoming bombs.

Well said Robert, that lack of urgency is like a boiling frog syndrome. I must admit, last few days I did feel like that frog getting slowly cooked, it was unpleasantly hot here.

Several experiments involving recording the reaction of frogs to slowly heated water took place in the 19th century. In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but an intact frog attempted to escape the water when it reached 25 °C.[SUP][4][17][/SUP]

Maybe Elon Musk is like that intact frog trying to escape to Mars. Just a thought.

It is my perspective that industry-funded denier disinformation may well be the single factor which makes the difference between the implementation in North America and Australia of sane and rational public policies to smoothly transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy, and the alternative of continuing with the business-as-usual approach leading to the well documented outcomes which seemed destined to cost hundreds of millions of lives and to bequeath a literal hell on earth to our grandchildren.

I disagree that denier' disinformation affects public policy to a large extent, at least in Australia. There are significant shifts in Australia brought about by various public policies aimed at promoting green energy and sustainability.

My view is that the progress in this area is not as fast as we wish mainly because of economic and other concerns trumping the environmental concerns. and because of a prevailing unwillingness to sacrifice present conveniences for future generations. Some examples of these necessities and conveniences are: working for "dirty" industry, driving ice cars instead of public transport, using air conditioners when cooling fans can do, and many other similar large or small self-sacrifice acts that the general public may be unwilling to make. How many people would choose to give up a job for a dirty industry and be unemployed, for the sake of preserving environment. People make choices based on their individual circumstances and often the environmental concerns are not on the top of the list.

Climate deniers may provide very convenient excuse for some, but the unwillingness is often there even if the full awareness on the issue is present. The question is then how to help people become more independent and less selfish.

I think the main progress will come with cultural changes brought about with transparency and connectivity. These changes can not be suppressed or stopped.

Internet facilitates instant information flow and spread. Ubiquitous video streaming cameras help with providing behavioral transparency. Public opinion and voice are amplified through social media and can not be suppressed.

I think we are already witnessing some significant changes like decoupling of money and respect. These two used to be tightly coupled in the old world where information was hard to access and suppressed. Now public is empowered to promote the values very different from the prevailing past values.

The reason Fox news and similar outlets can successfully spread misinformation is that their audience is still living in the old world and is unwilling to move. The question is how much power does deniers' audience hold and is legal action the best way to suppress the misinformation. What would be achieved by shutting down Fox?

I personally do not hold much hope in a legal system to bring about needed changes. My view is that the generation that grows up connected through various devices will not be as gullible or easy to manipulate. Maybe I am wrong.

Perhaps it is difficult to speak in general terms, if there were some specific examples of a legal action proposed to fight deniers, it might be easier to form an opinion. I also think that legal means or structures are available now to pursue the spread of misinformation and anyone is free to pursue these means, if they see fit.

 

[RichardC]

...

The reason Fox news and similar outlets can successfully spread misinformation is that their audience is still living in the old world and is unwilling to move. The question is how much power does deniers' audience hold and is legal action the best way to suppress the misinformation. What would be achieved by shutting down Fox?

The fact that the denier organizations continue to spend billions of dollars on these misleading information campaigns (in addition to the studies cited above) are prima facie evidence of their effectiveness.

...

My view is that the generation that grows up connected through various devices will not be as gullible or easy to manipulate. Maybe I am wrong...

Again, I would argue that the fact that the denier organizations continue to spend billions of dollars on these misleading information campaigns (in addition to the studies cited above), and the discrepancies between juridictions (such as the EU v. US) provide compelling evidence of the effectiveness of the disinformation campaigns.

...
Perhaps it is difficult to speak in general terms, if there were some specific examples of a legal action proposed to fight deniers, it might be easier to form an opinion. I also think that legal means or structures are available now to pursue the spread of misinformation and anyone is free to pursue these means, if they see fit.

A RICO case against the astroturf mouthpiece organizations, the dark money funding vehicles through which they are funded and the ultimate sources of funds for their disinformation campaigns, would seem to provide a promising line of attack (based on Phillip Morris and subsequent tobacco litigation cases). The results of the Phillip Morris case have been summarized as follows:

In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several major tobacco companies for fraudulent and unlawful conduct under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On August 17, 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. "As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO." ...

The Claims
Effective Claims – The U.S. brought two claims against the tobacco companies which were ultimately successful. Both relate to the tobacco industry’s deliberate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the addictive and deadly properties of its products.

The Defendants conducted business through a pattern of racketeering activity, brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), which allows the U.S. to impose civil penalties on enterprises that conduct affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.
The Defendants engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking; (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine; ... brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), which allows the U.S. to impose civil penalties on those who conspire to conduct affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. ...
• General Injunctions – The tobacco companies must refrain from the following activities: engaging in racketeering activities; managing or reconstituting the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, the Council for Indoor Air Research (third-party front groups used by the industry to perpetuate their racketeering activities) or any successor entities; or making false statements about cigarettes.
• Costs – The tobacco companies are obligated to pay the costs of the litigation expenses.

Remedies in Litigation:
• Corrective Communications – The court ordered the tobacco companies to disseminate through newspapers, television, package onserts, retail displays and corporate websites, corrective statements about addiction, the adverse health effects of smoking, the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, their manipulation of physical and chemical designs of cigarettes and light and low tar cigarettes.

See: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/si...rces/tclc-fs-DOJ-litigation-overview-2013.pdf
See also: http://www.justice.gov/civil/case-4 and http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/tobacco/rjr_v_us_rico.htm

 

[mknox]

My view is that the progress in this area is not as fast as we wish mainly because of economic and other concerns trumping the environmental concerns. and because of a prevailing unwillingness to sacrifice present conveniences for future generations. Some examples of these necessities and conveniences are: working for "dirty" industry, driving ice cars instead of public transport, using air conditioners when cooling fans can do, and many other similar large or small self-sacrifice acts that the general public may be unwilling to make. How many people would choose to give up a job for a dirty industry and be unemployed, for the sake of preserving environment. People make choices based on their individual circumstances and often the environmental concerns are not on the top of the list.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[RichardC]

Couldn't agree more.

But those options don't reflect the relevant choices that we are facing.

Under good public policy, with revenue neutral carbon pricing, we can have more jobs and more economic development, with less pollution and less income inequality.

The fact that the options are being framed in these highly negative terms reflects the pernicious impacts and distortions of the public policy discussion (caused by denier misrepresentations) that I am concerned about.

In Canada, carbon pricing has been mis-described as a "tax on everything", when it should properly be characterized as merely implemeting the polluter-pay principle, which under a revenue neutral model would leave the vast majority of the public with more money in their pockets (as high income earners create a vastly disproportionate amount of the carbon pollution and would therefore pay more than those of more modest means).

 

[mknox]

But those options don't reflect the relevant choices that we are facing.

Under good public policy,with revenue neutral carbon pricing, we can have more jobs and more economic development, with less pollution and less income inequality.

I guess what I liked about Auzie's statement is that we as individuals need to take ownership of our problems first, and not just "blame" or "point to" the government to make it happen. If the majority of folks decide they want to have kids, work in the oil industry, blast their a/c and drive their big SUVs to the corner store for milk, then they're not likely to want to vote for politicians who would take those things away from them (or make them any more expensive). And this is how democracy works. The people need to decide on their behaviors first, then government should follow... not the other way around. What may be "good public policy" to you may be exactly the opposite to the majority of voters.

 

[RichardC]

I guess what I liked about Auzie's statement is that we as individuals need to take ownership of our problems first, and not just "blame" or "point to" the government to make it happen. If the majority of folks decide they want to have kids, work in the oil industry, blast their a/c and drive their big SUVs to the corner store for milk, then they're not likely to want to vote for politicians who would take those things away from them (or make them any more expensive). And this is how democracy works. The people need to decide on their behaviors first, then government should follow... not the other way around. What may be "good public policy" to you may be exactly the opposite to the majority of voters.

I don't believe it is that simple. While I am personally a big believer in walking the talk and personal responsibility, because we are each dumping our GHG emissions on our neighbours, and our and their children, and our and their grandchildren, and great grandchildren, etc., the objective public interest (expressed in terms of harm to others) and associated legal obligations must apply.

For example, I make cigarettes, I want to sell more of them and to make more money, so I spend a fortune getting bogus organizations to lie to you to raise doubt as to whether smoking causes cancer, and whether second hand smoke is harmful and to trick young kids to start smoking. As long as I can trick enough of the public, I gather that I should be free to do that (and consequently to kill millions) with impunity. It is incontrovertible that individuals have the right to choose whether or not to take up smoking. In the system you seem to be espousing, what right should the government have to prohibit free speech (cigarette advertising), to mandate warnings on cigarette packages, or to bring claims against the tobacco companies for misleading the public about the harm caused by cigarette smoke?

The case for regulatory action on climate change is much clearer than with respect to cigarettes. The drowned farmers in Bangledesh, Pakistan or the Phillipines did absolutely nothing to cause the climate change that killed them (whereas every smoker arguably had to make a choice to light up and was substantially, if not wholly, responsible for their own demise).

What's more, how can citizens be said to have exercised their democratic franchise when they are relentlessly lied to about climate change by the very commercial interests that are seeking to harm them? How can this be viewed as informed consent?

If I can dump unlimited volumes of carbon pollution without cost and with impunity (while knowing that it will inevitably cause trillions of dollars of harm and cost hundreds of millions of lives) why shouldn't I be permitted to dump other toxins or carcinogens? Also why should I have to comply with public health laws (I could build houses at half the price if they didn't have to comply with health and safety laws)?

Our civilization is built on the principle that we do not have the right to harm others by dumping pollutants on them (whether the pollutant is sewage, tobacco smoke, mercury, arsenic, lead, or carbon dioxide). As a necessary corrollary, we do not have to right to cause harm to others by intentionally lying to them about effects of our pollution, and thereby preventing them from saving themselves from the harm.

That is why we have strict laws against dumping sewage, mercury, arsenic, lead and other pollutants. That's why the dumping tobacco smoke in public places has been outlawed. That's why we have restrictions on advertising cigarettes, and have in place misleading advertising, RICO and other laws that were breached by tobacco misrepresentations and are breached today by intentional misrepresentations denying climate change.

 

[Johan]

Eloquently spoken RichardC.

 

[mknox]

the objective public interest (expressed in terms of harm to others) and associated legal obligations must apply.

But that public policy must be implemented by elected officials. If the majority of the populace values this particular public interest, they will elect politicians who will enact such legislation. In a democracy, it has to be that way (and I don't really want to digress into a discussion over socialism/communism vs. representative democracies).

As long as I can trick enough of the public, I gather that I should be free to do that (and consequently to kill millions) with impunity.

This sort of sentiment has always irked me. It's as if to say "I'm smart, but the rest of you are so stupid that you can't figure this out for yourselves".

What's more, how can citizens be said to have exercised their democratic franchise when they are relentlessly lied to about climate change by the very commercial interests that are seeking to harm them? How can this be viewed as informed consent?

I have similar frustrations over "Intelligent Design" and other such nonsense. There is a tie in to climate change because I've heard the argument that "God would never let anything bad happen" or the like. Be that as it may, I still contend that people have to figure this out for themselves and if we're going to limit free speech, call out lies and such, then let's start with the real big lies that have caused the deaths of millions over the course of our history.

Our civilization is built on the principle that we do not have the right to harm others...

That might be a nice thought, but I think there are just too many examples of how that simply isn't true.

I just want to conclude by saying that I'm not some sort of crazy climate denier or anything like that. It's just that I have a problem with over-reaching legislation and "big brother knows best" attitudes. People are smarter than we give them credit for, can tell lies from truths and are able to make decisions. In a democracy, we have to respect the fact that the majority decision might not be the one we like, but over time attitudes can change. Tying it back to Auzie's earlier post, I do believe that until the majority of people are willing to give up their "dirty" habits, the political pressure will not be there. It has to start with personal responsibility and "walking the talk".

 

[Robert.Boston]

I agree with much of your thinking on this, @mknox, and I particularly like this line: "People are smarter than we give them credit for, can tell lies from truths and are able to make decisions." While I'd like to believe this, if it were true the advertising industry would be much smaller than it is and produce very different ads than it does, focusing on providing information rather than feel-good messaging.

The 'wisdom of the masses' problem is further compounded for issues that are not of widespread interest. Only a small minority of people bother to focus their thinking on climate change to reach an informed opinion. Most simply catch the general drift of whatever forms their general opinions, be it media, ministers, or drinking buddies. The denialist organizations specialize in muddying the waters so that most people, who don't spend a lot of time doing independent research on the subject, come away with a view that can be summarized as "there might be a problem, and humans might be part of the cause, but we're not sure." Maybe the past five years we've gotten to "there's likely a problem, and humans are likely part of the cause, but we're not sure." Are most people going to support making fundamental changes about how we produce and consume energy, if that's there view? I think not.

I've been particularly pleased to see Pope Francis weigh in so clearly and decisively on climate change. This is the sort of leadership that might be able to shift the center of public opinion.

 

[Auzie]

I agree with much of your thinking on this, @mknox, and I particularly like this line: "People are smarter than we give them credit for, can tell lies from truths and are able to make decisions." While I'd like to believe this, if it were true the advertising industry would be much smaller than it is and produce very different ads than it does, focusing on providing information rather than feel-good messaging.

The existence and size of the advertising industry are not a proof that it is effective as it is. The surest attributes of said industry is that most people are annoyed by it and do not trust it. It might be effective to some extent in informing people about the product, but most people take advertisements with a grain of salt.

The 'wisdom of the masses' problem is further compounded for issues that are not of widespread interest. Only a small minority of people bother to focus their thinking on climate change to reach an informed opinion. Most simply catch the general drift of whatever forms their general opinions, be it media, ministers, or drinking buddies. The denialist organizations specialize in muddying the waters so that most people, who don't spend a lot of time doing independent research on the subject, come away with a view that can be summarized as "there might be a problem, and humans might be part of the cause, but we're not sure." Maybe the past five years we've gotten to "there's likely a problem, and humans are likely part of the cause, but we're not sure." Are most people going to support making fundamental changes about how we produce and consume energy, if that's there view? I think not.

If people do not bother to focus and learn about the issue, that is most likely due to such issue not being very high on the list of their priorities. Most people are struggling to survive and that overshadows any other issues.

Imo, if we wish to get people interested and engaged in climate change issue, then the most effective way of achieving that is to help them overcome their more pressing priorities. Economic, educational and health issues will trump climate change concerns.
Such inflexible hierarchy of priorities is reflected in the way people vote.

I've been particularly pleased to see Pope Francis weigh in so clearly and decisively on climate change. This is the sort of leadership that might be able to shift the center of public opinion.

Pope Francis in like a breath of fresh air, I find it against the odds that someone like Pope Francis managed to rise up through the ranks of Catholic Church.

 

[mknox]

While I'd like to believe this, if it were true the advertising industry would be much smaller than it is and produce very different ads than it does, focusing on providing information rather than feel-good messaging.

Fair enough, but I think advertising's main intent is to raise awareness of a product or service where little or no awareness exists. (and in the case of Coke, Nike etc. to keep them top of mind). From what I see and hear, the vast, vast majority of stuff on the subject of climate change is overwhelmingly positive. By that I mean truthful and factual. Sure there is the odd Fox News story, dumb industry sponsored ad and such, but to me it seems to be similar to the late stages of cigarette advertising when everyone knew they were bad for you. I really think the number of people who deny climate change in their hearts is dropping quickly BUT even among those folks there is probably a majority who are just not willing to give up their lifestyles and creature comforts to do anything about it. This will translate into their political will, and result in governments hesitant to take action for fear of being voted out of office.