Climate Change Legal Action

[Auzie]

If I am correct, the premise of this thread seems to be that the governments need to take legal action against deniers for deliberately misinforming the public. The ultimate goal of such action is presumably a better informed public. Voters with more understanding of climate change risks will presumably put more pressure on their government to develop stronger public policy responses to climate change.

My problems with the premises:

I find it unlikely that deniers have much if any effects on public informing themselves. The largest influence on people informing themselves is information availability and their personal inclinations. People have inbuilt biases and tend to reinforce these biases by selecting the information that falls neatly into their world view.

I find it unlikely that deniers have much effect on government policy regarding climate change.

Public will cast their vote (public pressure) according to their hierarchy of concerns. Economic concerns trump environmental concerns with the majority of voters, informed or uninformed on climate change.

Most if not all governments are already making great strides in developing various policies that underpin environment preservation. Major policy makers stumbling blocks and concerns when unleashing new environmental policies are related to a risk that the new policy may undermine economic growth.

An interesting article in The Economist, Environmental regulations may not cost as much as governments and business fear, looks at the economic effects of environmental policies.

This does not mean it has been impossible to study climate policies. But without macro-environmental indicators, studies have largely been restricted to individual laws, such as America’s Clean Air Act. For the most part, they have found that these laws have little impact. As a recent review of the literature* concluded, the effects on “employment and productivity…appear to be small and transitory…the estimated effects…on trade and investment location so far are negligible.” That is fine, as far as it goes. But national climate policies are increasingly ambitious, ranging from vehicle-emission standards and clean-water requirements to controls on power stations. Policymakers need to know not just the impact of individual measures but the combined effect of all their environmental policies.

‘Researchers at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a club mostly of rich countries, recently constructed the first comprehensive set of data on environmental strictness and its effect on productivity.† The researchers got around the difficulties of incomplete national accounts by calculating an index based on the explicit or implicit price of green policies. If a price is explicit—say, that of a traded pollution permit—the calculation is reasonably straightforward. If it is implicit—arising from restrictions on vehicle emissions, for example—the researchers estimated a relative score based on a scale of zero to six (zero means the policy is absent; six represents the most stringent measure in force). They combined this and other data to create a composite indicator of “environmental policy stringency” (EPS) for 24 OECD countries from 1990 to 2012. Using the ORBIS database of information on 44m companies, they were then able to calculate how changes in the EPS indicator affected manufacturing firms.’

Policies in most developed countries have become stricter since 1990.

More importantly, the new study confirms earlier findings about the impact of individual measures: “an increase in stringency of environmental policies does not harm productivity growth.” This contradicts what most governments and companies seem to believe: that green rules may be justified by the need to save the planet but impose immediate economic costs.

Lastly, it is possible that the kind of environmental policy matters a lot—whether it is broadly market-based (such as a carbon price) or not (such as bans or regulations). To measure this, the researchers constructed a second index, using a questionnaire to look at matters such as the administrative burden associated with getting an environmental permit or whether new firms face higher barriers to entry as a result of green rules. The index is only a snapshot—but is enough to show that environmental strictness and market-friendliness are not the same. The Netherlands is strict but competition-friendly; Italy is lax but anti-competitive; Germany is strict and burdensome. Perhaps countries should pay as much attention to the quality of their environmental legislation as to its stringency.

Stringency index demonstrates that most governments have more than doubled their environmental efforts in the last couple of decades. It is likely that this effort will keep rising at faster than linear rate in the future.

My view is that the scarce government resources are far better utilized in continually improving and adding to their existing policies as they seem to be doing. The impediments to government work in this area has more to do with other concerns unrelated to deniers. Chasing deniers seem futile to me, resembling Don Quixote fights, better left to public and each individual to sort out for themselves.

 

[nwdiver]

My view is that the scarce government resources are far better utilized in continually improving and adding to their existing policies as they seem to be doing. The impediments to government work in this area has more to do with other concerns unrelated to deniers. Chasing deniers seem futile to me, resembling Don Quixote fights, better left to public and each individual to sort out for themselves.

I don't see why such a system couldn't be 'self-funded'. The government already has experts on staff at NOAA. We would just need to give them the ability to direct the Justice Department to go after the bad actors. Science does well in a court of law. Evolution has won every court case since scopes.

 

[RichardC]

If I am correct, the premise of this thread seems to be that the governments need to take legal action against deniers for deliberately misinforming the public. The ultimate goal of such action is presumably a better informed public. Voters with more understanding of climate change risks will presumably put more pressure on their government to develop stronger public policy responses to climate change.

As discussed below, the direct and indirect impacts are considerably more complicated than that.

Stringency index demonstrates that most governments have more than doubled their environmental efforts in the last couple of decades. It is likely that this effort will keep rising at faster than linear rate in the future.

There are a variety of different aspects of environmental regulation, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with climate change, and therefore they have not been subjected to the massive denier disinformation campaign that has been brought to bear in Canada, the US and Australia against effective climate change regulation.

My view is that the scarce government resources are far better utilized in continually improving and adding to their existing policies as they seem to be doing. The impediments to government work in this area has more to do with other concerns unrelated to deniers. Chasing deniers seem futile to me, resembling Don Quixote fights, better left to public and each individual to sort out for themselves.

That is absolutely incorrect for the reason that the denier disinformation is the necessary enabler of the election of industry-sponsored politicians who appear to have been acting at the behest of the industry to block, for the past 30 years, effective climate change regulation. Why else would billions of dollars be spent to disseminate this denier disinformation. It is reasonable to assume that those paying for this disinformation campaign are obtaining good value for money. The ability of the denier organizations to lie to the public to advance the commercial interests of their sponsors has implications extending beyond the countries to international climate change negotiations where Canada and Australia have been repeatedly recognized for their efforts to impede progress.

See: http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2013...evement-fossil-award-at-warsaw-climate-talks/

WARSAW, Poland, November 22, 2013 – Canada was dishonoured with an inauspicious ‘Lifetime Unachievement’ Fossil award this evening during the final official day of the UN climate negotiations. Granted as part of the long-running satirical Fossil of the Day / Fossil of the Year awards series, the special prize was given to point to the Harper government’s longstanding failure to make meaningful contributions and instead resort to blocking and stalling progress at the UN climate talks.

“After winning the Colossal Fossil award – given to the country doing the most damage to climate talks in a given year – five years in a row, Canada is in a league of its own for its total lack of credibility on climate action,” said Christian Holz, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. …

See also: http://www.climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day

… Our third place Fossil of the Day goes to Canada who have managed to fly under the radar here in Lima, despite plenty of underhand work stalling the talks and refusing to make any commitments. Canadian negotiators have told observers on the ground in Lima they’re on track to meet 2020 emissions reductions targets - this is a bald-faced lie. Back at home the Canadian government keep pushing to expand the oil industry like its 1899! Pipe-down Canada.

Our final and most infamous award is the Final Fossil of the day at COP20!

This year’s Fossil of the Year Award, goes to Australia who take the Colossal Fossil award for collecting more Fossil awards than any other country here at COP20. From the get-go Australia signalled they were not coming here to make progress towards a comprehensive international climate agreement. This was pretty clear when they sent a climate sceptic Trade Minister Andrew Robb along to “chaperone” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop into a negotiating dead-end. The delegation in Lima has been dragging down loss & damage, flip-flopping on climate finance, and making bizarre comments that reveal a warped perspective on climate action. Shape up Australia, you are making Canada look good!

The recent elections of Republican deniers in the US (which is enabled by denier disinformation) is having the effects summarized in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/a-pipeline-and-a-pie-in-the-sky.html?_r=0

LOS ANGELES — The Koch brothers Congress, purchased with the help of about $100 million from the political network of the billionaire energy producers, got down to its first order of business this week: trying to hold off the future. …

The 114th Congress is trying to rush through the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from the dirty tar sands of Canada to the Gulf Coast. The State Department has estimated that the total number of permanent new jobs created by the pipeline would be 35 — about the same as the handful of new taco trucks in my neighborhood in Seattle. This, at a time when the world is awash in cheap oil. …

Russia, which is ranked below California in overall economic output, is teetering as world commodity prices provide a cold lesson in what can happen to a country tied to the fate of oil’s wild swings. The Republicans should take note. The Keystone pipeline, though largely symbolic in the global scheme of things, does nothing for the American economy except set up the United States as a pass-through colony for foreign industrialists. Well, not all foreign: The Koch brothers are one of the largest outside leaseholders of acres in Canadian oil sands, according to a Washington Post report. I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fierce urgency of rushing Keystone XL through Congress now.

At the same time, the Republican hold-back-the-clock majority announced plans to roll back environmental regulations. Fighting hard for dirty air, dirty water and old-century energy producers, the new Senate leaders are trying to keep some of the nation’s oldest and most gasping coal plants in operation, and to ensure that unhealthy air can pass freely from one state to the other. …

For intellectual guidance, Republicans can count on 80-year-old Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the incoming chairman of the environment committee. Inhofe calls the consensus scientific view on human-caused warming “the greatest hoax.” He plans to use his gavel to hold back regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, fighting the obvious at every turn.

The headache, for the rest of us, will come when the nations of the world meet in Paris at year’s end to discuss how to address the problem that knows no nationality. We’ll talk about China and its climate-warming coal plants. Critics will point to the United States, its knuckle-dragging Congress and the industries it is shielding from responsibility.

See also: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress

It’s much easier to list Republicans in Congress who think climate change is real than it is to list Republicans who don’t, because there are so few members of the former group. Earlier this year, Politifact went looking for congressional Republicans who had not expressed scepticism about climate change and came up with a list of eight (out of 278).

It is inconceivable that such a massive chasm between the clear scientific consensus on climate change and the views of the Republican Party (which was just now awarded control over both the House and the Senate in the US) could have arisen without the support of the well funded climate change denier disinformation campaign. Consequently, legal action to prevent continuation of the denier disinformation campaign would appear to be an essential prerequisite to effective action on climate change.

It is interesting to note that China seems to be recognizing the benefits of judicial action against pollution, see: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ourages-environmental-groups-to-sue-polluters

China on Wednesday granted public interest groups more power to sue those that flout environmental protection laws, the country’s highest court said, as Beijing steps up efforts to curb pollution that regularly chokes major cities.
Social groups that work to fight polluters judicially will gain special status and have court fees reduced, the Supreme People’s Court said on its website.
They will also be allowed to sue firms or individuals across China, regardless of where the organisation is based.

 

[Auzie]

I don't see why such a system couldn't be 'self-funded'. The government already has experts on staff at NOAA. We would just need to give them the ability to direct the Justice Department to go after the bad actors. Science does well in a court of law. Evolution has won every court case since scopes.

I see a lot of merit in pursuing people who deliberately broadcast misinformation on any topic, not limited to climate change. However expecting government to fully execute all aspects of screening the oceans of information and going after the deniers seem far-fetched to me.

There are a variety of different aspects of environmental regulation, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with climate change, and therefore they have not been subjected to the massive denier disinformation campaign that has been brought to bear in Canada, the US and Australia against effective climate change regulation.

All environmental regulation aims to preserve the environment. If the process of climate change is not stopped, the environment as we know it will not be preserved.

Which environmental acts do you see as not falling under the same umbrella as stopping climate change?

That is absolutely incorrect for the reason that the denier disinformation is the necessary enabler of the election of industry-sponsored politicians who appear to have been acting at the behest of the industry to block, for the past 30 years, effective climate change regulation. Why else would billions of dollars be spent to disseminate this denier disinformation. It is reasonable to assume that those paying for this disinformation campaign are obtaining good value for money. The ability of the denier organizations to lie to the public to advance the commercial interests of their sponsors has implications extending beyond the countries to international climate change negotiations where Canada and Australia have been repeatedly recognized for their efforts to impede progress.

It is inconceivable that such a massive chasm between the clear scientific consensus on climate change and the views of the Republican Party (which was just now awarded control over both the House and the Senate in the US) could have arisen without the support of the well funded climate change denier disinformation campaign. Consequently, legal action to prevent continuation of the denier disinformation campaign would appear to be an essential prerequisite to effective action on climate change.

People are not little innocent children that can be manipulated by someone more powerful and/or knowledgeable. If people are misinformed, that is accomplished at their own responsibility, by their own choice and predisposition.

I would turn your argument 180 degrees and say that there is so much misinformation being spread because there is a hungry audience for it. The audience with such predisposition will tend to vote the way they vote regardless of hearing or not what they wish to hear.

In the same way that you and I seem to see this issue from very different angles, there will always be people who see the world in a very different way to anyone else and all the arguing, persuading, suing, is often very futile exercise.

I disagree with your argument that those paying for spreading disinformation get good value for money.

In summary, prosecuting deniers is unlikely to change voting patterns anywhere. Voting patterns are very likely to change if all voting hurdles are removed. Once voting becomes as easy as using a smart phone, politicians may become redundant. The problem is that the politicians have vested interests in preserving the current system and they are the gatekeepers to changes.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/china-encourages-environmental-groups-to-sue-polluters[/URL]

Pursuing polluters is very different to pursuing deniers.

 

[jerry33]

I disagree with your argument that those paying for spreading disinformation get good value for money.

In summary, prosecuting deniers is unlikely to change voting patterns anywhere. Voting patterns are very likely to change if all voting hurdles are removed. Once voting becomes as easy as using a smart phone, politicians may become redundant. The problem is that the politicians have vested interests in preserving the current system and they are the gatekeepers to changes.

Pursuing polluters is very different to pursuing deniers.

1. Based on the last election, it seems as if they got very good value for their money.

2. The current Congress and Senate are not going to make voting easier--if anything they will try to restrict voting even more.

3. I don't believe anyone it talking about prosecuting individuals. That would be ineffective and hard to do. Prosecuting companies that pollute and stopping disinformation campaigns, similar to the way the tobacco industry was handled is the only way. Just a warning on every ad and article "This ad was paid for by the X industry which stands to profit from the pollution it causes" would eventually get the message across.

4. In an ideal world companies would be forced to pay for every bit of damage and secondary damage their products and production methods caused. (This basically means health problems such as asthma due to polluted air and water, property damage from earthquakes caused by fracking, pollution from coal mining, etc.) No company should be allowed to have short term profits at the expense of everyone else, and it certainly should be okay for corporations to pollute and make profits while the taxpayers have to clean up the mess they leave.

 

[Tedkidd]

This is fun to watch. You guys are doing a great job supporting your positions. High quality debate.

Jerry, nicely put. Particularly # 3 & 4

 

[Auzie]

This is fun to watch. You guys are doing a great job supporting your positions. High quality debate.

Jerry, nicely put. Particularly # 3 & 4

I was just about to walk away as I find further discussion futile, no one is budging from their position, but you made me change my mind. There is a lot of value in entertaining people and if you find it entertaining then it is not futile :biggrin:

1. Based on the last election, it seems as if they got very good value for their money.

2. The current Congress and Senate are not going to make voting easier--if anything they will try to restrict voting even more.

3. I don't believe anyone it talking about prosecuting individuals. That would be ineffective and hard to do. Prosecuting companies that pollute and stopping disinformation campaigns, similar to the way the tobacco industry was handled is the only way. Just a warning on every ad and article "This ad was paid for by the X industry which stands to profit from the pollution it causes" would eventually get the message across.

4. In an ideal world companies would be forced to pay for every bit of damage and secondary damage their products and production methods caused. (This basically means health problems such as asthma due to polluted air and water, property damage from earthquakes caused by fracking, pollution from coal mining, etc.) No company should be allowed to have short term profits at the expense of everyone else, and it certainly should be okay for corporations to pollute and make profits while the taxpayers have to clean up the mess they leave.

1. Election would have likely gone the way it did regardless of deniers broadcasting climate change misinformation

2. We agree on this 100%, and that is exactly the change that is most needed

3. We need to be consistent in applying the law. Entities (individuals, organizations) need to be treated (prosecuted) under a consistent principle. I see value in regulating some sort of required truthfulness and transparency if there is a potential for harm. I am not a lawyer, not very familiar with the existing laws, but I would be very surprised if such principle is not already built in some existing acts.

4. Same as no.3. If what you describe does not happen, I see it as a failure of the execution, not a failure to regulate. We already have a multitude of regulations that businesses fail to comply with when causing damage as you described. Someone just need to do a lot of work to make a case, like in Erin Brokovich or Civil Action movies.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

This is fun to watch. You guys are doing a great job supporting your positions. High quality debate.

Jerry, nicely put. Particularly # 3 & 4

Why fun?

If it's a high quality debate it's interesting not fun. Maybe it's because I am not English mother tongue but I don't understand.

 

[Auzie]

Why fun?

If it's a high quality debate it's interesting not fun. Maybe it's because I am not English mother tongue but I don't understand.

Raffy, fun is good. Fun debate is great, interesting debate may be so and so:smile:

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Raffy, fun is good. Fun debate is great, interesting debate may be so and so:smile:

Sorry. As I said I am not English mother tongue. :smile:

 

[RichardC]

Public disinformation disenfranchises voters and, in my view, makes legislation against the (scientific evidence-based) public interest more likely. We have seen this repeatedly in Canada and refer to the recent example of the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act in the US. See: http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog...tions-so-called-regulatory-accountability-act

On Jan. 7, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 185), a measure that would cripple our process for issuing and enforcing the rules that ensure we have clean air and water, safe food and consumer products, fair wages and safe workplaces, stable financial markets, state-of-the-art infrastructure, and so many other essential protections.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would not improve our regulatory process as big business groups and their anti-regulatory allies in Congress want you to believe. In reality, this bill would impose 74 new burdensome requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act, increasing the demands of agencies already struggling to operate under Congress’s latest budget cuts. It already takes several years for agencies to navigate the current regulatory process, yet this bill would require agencies to conduct even more analyses, meaning it would take even longer for agencies to issue important rules.

See also: http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CFEFB5B4-9B44-75BE-CF2636189D408F57

To those who are skeptical about the effectiveness of disinformation campaigns and lobbying to distort public policy - three words: "follow the money"!

 

[RichardC]

Report on a potentially groundbreaking case brought by children under the public trust doctrine. See:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/01/eugene_teens_who_sued_gov_john.html

Two Eugene teens are about to have their day in court after suing Gov. John Kitzhaber more than three years ago for failing to protect their generation from climate change.
Lane County Circuit Court Judge Karsten Rasmussen is scheduled to hear arguments March 13 related to 18-year-old Kelsey Juliana and 14-year-old Olivia Chernaik’s claims that Oregon’s state government is violating the public trust doctrine by moving too slowly to protect Oregon’s natural resources from the impacts of carbon dioxide pollution.

“The case is really about our generation having a moral obligation to the youth in future generations,” said Chris Winter, co-director of the Portland-based Crag Law Center, who is representing Juliana and Chernaik. ...

The court date is a significant milestone in a suit that nearly fizzled at the outset. The teens filed suit in 2011 ...

Months later, Rasmussen dismissed the case at the state’s request. He ruled that decisions about resource use are a political issue over which the court has no authority. The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed, and ruled in June that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. ...

The teens’ suit relies upon Oregon’s failure to meet the carbon emission reduction goals laid out eight years ago in House Bill 3543. Even if Oregon did meet the goals, they argue, future generations would remain vulnerable to the catastrophic impacts of climate change. ...

Juliana and Chernaik have garnered some high-profile supporters, including Eugene’s mayor. The director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute – a consortium of scientists the state Legislature established to help steer Oregon’s climate change response strategy -- has also written testimony in support of the teens' claims. ...

“This issue needs attention from all branches of government,” she said. “Kids don’t get to vote yet and we don’t have money to donate to campaigns, but we as a generation have the most at stake, and the most to gain from taking action.”

Olson, the Our Children’s Trust director, said the Oregon teens’ case is “the case to watch” among dozens of related suits in various stages of development across the country.

As the impacts of climate change become increasingly apparent and undeniable, and politicians increasingly obviously disconnected from reality, look for these cases to begin to succeed (as occurred in the tobacco litigation).

 

[Robert.Boston]

Report on a potentially groundbreaking case brought by children under the public trust doctrine. See:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/01/eugene_teens_who_sued_gov_john.html



As the impacts of climate change become increasingly apparent and undeniable, and politicians increasingly obviously disconnected from reality, look for these cases to begin to succeed (as occurred in the tobacco litigation).

It sounds like the judge not likely to give this case a serious hearing, given his previous ruling to dismiss it. But even if this particular case fails, it might create a template for future suits elsewhere.

 

[Auzie]

I would ask these teens if they have given up on ice cream. Producing ice cream contributes to climate change as it is totally unnecessary activity and, to top it off, eating the ice cream is very unhealthy. What have these teens done or what have they given up to help with the problem, apart from suing the government?

For example, have they given up on heating or cooling, driving cars or any other activity that contributes to climate change?

If these teens wish for better government or better world, they are free to build it. Starting the journey with suing the government on questionable grounds does not look like the good start of a life journey.

Political system, as imperfect as it currently is, is not a product of a few politicians, but of our collective efforts. Politicians do their best to survive in cut-throat environments.

Projecting the blame for world problems outward may make some people feel better about themselves. Blaming others rarely acts as a driver for change. On the other side, introspection and taking adequate personal responsibility is never misplaced.

 

[nwdiver]

I would ask these teens if they have given up on ice cream. Producing ice cream contributes to climate change as it is totally unnecessary activity and, to top it off, eating the ice cream is very unhealthy.

If someone likes taking high moral ground over others, they better be flawless.

This line of logic is flawed...

One of the more asenine rebuttals I've heard when I advocate for reduced oil consumption is that oil is still used to manufacture the tires on electric vehicles... OK.... so since we need to use a little that means we should use MASSIVE amounts?!?!?

No... taking a pen home from work in not morally equivalent to bank robbery and 'eating ice cream' is certainly not morally equivalent to this...

....orders of magnitude...

 

[RichardC]

There are a number of publications and reports which address the growing prospects for litigation to address the climate change problem (and for lawyers to attempt to recover parts of the $600 billion a year costs of climate change).

A book which is in press for publication in February "Climate Change Litigation Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy" provides an examination of the role of litigation in addressing the problem of climate change. This book looks at how the massive and growing number of lawsuits influences regulation directly, and also shape corporate behaviour and public opinion. Copies may be ordered at: http://www.cambridge.org/ar/academi...litigation-regulatory-pathways-cleaner-energy

"Payback Time? What the Internationalization of Climate Litigation Could Mean for Canadian Oil and Gas Companies" is a report which analyzes the serious risks to Canadian companies of climate change litigation. Because the impacts and causes of climate change are global, climate damages litigation could take place in, and apply the laws of, any of the countries where damage occurs. These countries may also choose to adopt new laws clarifying the legal rules around climate damages litigation, much as Canadian provinces did to facilitate tobacco litigation. As a result, large-scale greenhouse gas producers and their shareholders are exposed to significant legal risks that will only grow in the future. See: http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/Payback Time.pdf and http://wcel.org/resources/publication/payback-time

Payback time? then considers the total potential liability of five oil and gas companies currently trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange—EnCanada, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, and Husky—and finds these five companies could presently be incurring a global liability as high as $2.4 billion per year for their contribution to climate change. The study concludes that given the sheer number and diversity of potential venues for litigation, and the growing interest in pursuing it, civil liability for large-scale green house gas emitters is extremely likely, particularly as the costs associated with climate change rise.

See also: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2549045643/ and http://wcel.org/media-centre/media-...could-cost-canadian-oil-gas-companies-billion

“Fossil fuel companies and other large-scale greenhouse gas producers have contributed, globally, to trillions of dollars of damages related to climate change. As with tobacco companies in the 1980s, these producers are confident the law will not hold them responsible for these damages,” says Gage. “But rising levels of climate damage, increasing scientific evidence about the links between emissions and the damage they cause, and an emerging public debate about who is financially responsible for this damage, could change the situation very quickly.”

and: http://www.plant.ca/features/legal-costs-climate-change/

“Substantial shifts will be required of large-scale greenhouse gas producers and their investors if they hope to manage the risk of climate damages litigation, such as moving away from fossil fuels, and supporting the adoption of international agreements that could link the reduction of liability risk to the provision of financial assistance or future emission reductions,” says Byers.

The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (now shut down) pegged the costs of climate changed at $5 billion annually by 2020. A report by the commission revealed Canada was nowhere near the Harper government’s goal of reducing emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

Scientists are also honing in on the sources of greenhouse gases. Research from the Climate Accountability Institute in Snowmass, Colo. has narrowed the source of two-thirds of all carbon emissions from 1854-2010 to 90 private and state-owned corporations, including the five based in Canada.

The study concludes civil liability for large-scale green house gas emitters is extremely likely, particularly as the costs associated with climate change rise.

Law schools are also starting to train lawyers with respect to the legal techniques which may be used to fight climate change. For example, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School has the following mission:

The Mission

The core mission of the Sabin Center is to develop and promulgate legal techniques to address climate change, and to train the next generation of lawyers who will be leaders in the field. The Sabin Center is both a partner to and resource for public interest legal institutions engaged in climate change work. Further, the center addresses a critical need for the systematic development of legal techniques to fight climate change outside of the realm of judicial litigation, and the compilation and dissemination of information for lawyers in the public, private and NGO sectors.

Columbia Law School is specially situated to make fundamental contributions to the development of the legal structures needed to address climate change. As one of the world’s preeminent law schools, our faculty has unsurpassed depth in the many legal disciplines that must be harnessed to address the critical issue of climate change. This initiative benefits from great synergies with the school’s other centers and programs around Columbia University.

See: http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-change/about-center

 

[RichardC]

The fact that the world's leading public relations firms will not accept mandates from climate change deniers, and in some cases cite the illegality of such misleading representations as a reason, is further evidence of both immorality and illegality of such disinformation campaigns. See:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...mpanies-rule-out-working-with-climate-deniers

The UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm by revenue and parent company of Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations, said taking on a client or campaign disputing climate change would violate company guidelines.“We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category,” the company said.

If these organizations are true to their word, this would represent a significant change, as public relations firms have recently been reported to have been major beneficiaries of oil industry largesse. See: http://www.climateinvestigations.org/blog

Big Oil Paid Edelman and FleishmanHillard Over $400 Million Since 2008 Posted by Kert Davies · January 15, 2015 5:46 AM

The Center for Public Integrity has just released a report compiling spending by industry trade associations on public relations over the past decade or so. The report, titled Who needs lobbyists? See what big business spends to win American minds, by Erin Quin and Chris Young, was published this morning. They also have an article on Huffington Post, currently on the front page.

The biggest spender was the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the biggest recipient in the PR industry was Edelman PR. Edelman got $327.4 million between 2008 and 2012. (2008 was the first year such reporting was required by the IRS of trade association non-profits.) API paid Edelman an additional $33 million in 2013. ...

Overal, CPI's team found over $1.2 billion was paid by 144 trade associations to PR firms from 2008 to 2012. This was 37 percent of all the independent contractor spending reported by trade associations. CPI points out that "lobbying spending" is on the wain, while "soft lobbying", advertising and PR, are on the rise. The big spending category by far were the energy and natural resources trade associations, topping out at $430 million. ...

Influence Peddling on Hyperdrive

This report reveals the hyperdrive propaganda machine that has been cranked up really since the 2008 election cycle. How did Big Oil become so powerful in Washington over the past six or seven years? To the point where they now basically own the Congress?

With deliberate effort and a large bags of cash, that's how.

The most visible proof of this pressure is evidenced by Senate Bill #1 in the 114th Congress. S.1 this year is simply titled "To approve the the Keystone XL Pipeline". That's right, the very first priority after the triumphant 2014 Elections for the Republicans is energy, its Big Oil's agenda, a corporate pipeline project... and now oil exports and all of big oil's wish list are being tacked onto this bill as amendments. Should be an interesting show over the next month as the bought and paid politicians perform for the Big Oil puppeteers.

The CPI report's revelations are striking, even for jaded climate/clean energy advocates. We knew Edelman was getting a lot of oil money from API and from various oil companies like Exxon and TransCanada, but its really a LOT of money, ranging from $33 to $75 million per year from American Petroleum Institute alone since 2008. ...

These contracts are so large that they accounted for more than 10 percent of Edelman's total fees in many of those years. ...

See also: http://www.prweek.com/article/1310876/whither-climate-change-debate

 

[3mp_kwh]

• 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?

I'm going with 10b-5, because among all the places we should be by now, being able to assess the heavy hitters is something we should have been able to do long ago. CO2 intensity is a financial risk metric, to a utility investor, no matter what side you're on. Its enforcement is only as good as the disposition of the SEC. Even under Democratic control, they don't find it material when the nation's largest utilities omit any statement of annual carbon release, in their 10-k's. The public and State and Federal regulators are working on different knots, for this noose. I would want to know.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Thanks to @nwdiver, this opinion issued yesterday from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, holding a newspaper guilty of defamation against a climate scientist for intentionally misrepresenting his statements. http://www.desmog.ca/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Judge%20Burke%2C%20re%20Weaver%20v.%20Corcoran%2C%2002-05.pdf

If this approach is going to have any meaningful impact on the publication of misrepresentations, the $50k (Canadian!!) damages will not be enough.

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks to @nwdiver, this opinion issued yesterday from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, holding a newspaper guilty of defamation against a climate scientist for intentionally misrepresenting his statements. http://www.desmog.ca/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Judge Burke, re Weaver v. Corcoran, 02-05.pdf

If this approach is going to have any meaningful impact on the publication of misrepresentations, the $50k (Canadian!!) damages will not be enough.

Whew... not nearly as tense over here as in the other thread :frown:...

Agreed... every marathon begins with a step...

IMO the next step should be lawsuits for MISREPRESENTING research... maybe if we push that far enough the liars and deceivers can fund climate research :wink: