SF sues oil companies because of climate change

[nwdiver]

and highlights your complete lack of understanding of petroleum!
the level of your cluelessness is astounding yet you continue to expound nonsense built on a base of ignorance.

*sigh* you really have zero counter-points don't you... it's a fairly straight forward and simple question....

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

The cost of fossil fuels needs to rise to reflect the external harm they inflict. I'd prefer a Carbon Tax but I'll settle for massive litigation. Do you have anything to contribute other than childish insults?

Do you think adding ~40B tons/yr CO2 isn't harmful? Based one what?

Do you think it's ok to force Fires, Floods, Droughts and rising sea levels on others because people are too lazy or foolish to behave responsibly? What kind of demented ethics is that?

Do you think we'll shift to renewables rapidly enough without external motivation to prevent the worst effect of AGW? BASED. ON. WHAT.

 

[cpa]

In most locations here in the good ole US of A, public transportation sucks. We in California are currently building a boondoggle of a high-speed rail project supposedly to connect the Bay Area with Los Angeles and San Diego. The engineers still have not figured out how to reach Los Angeles from the Valley. I highly doubt that this project will ever be completed.

Anyway, the tens of thousands of automobile idling on the roads five days per week for three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening would be sliced by a large fraction if there were decent public transportation from all outlying cities and towns into the metropolitan areas.

Unfortunately for us, urban sprawl, vast miles of freeway construction, and cheap housing 50+ miles away after WWII paved the way, as it were, for Californians and their automobiles. Everyone wanted to live in the suburbs in the '50s--I know my folks and my friends' folks did.

I do not know how to unscramble this particular egg. But $200 billion might be a start.

Quick question for all y'all: If we could sprinkle some magic dust to have an exceptional high-speed rail or tube, would you take public transportation between LA and the Bay Area or LA and Vegas if the travel time were reasonable, on time, and the rail cars maintained and clean?

 

[kort677]

In most locations here in the good ole US of A, public transportation sucks. We in California are currently building a boondoggle of a high-speed rail project supposedly to connect the Bay Area with Los Angeles and San Diego. The engineers still have not figured out how to reach Los Angeles from the Valley. I highly doubt that this project will ever be completed.

Anyway, the tens of thousands of automobile idling on the roads five days per week for three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening would be sliced by a large fraction if there were decent public transportation from all outlying cities and towns into the metropolitan areas.

Unfortunately for us, urban sprawl, vast miles of freeway construction, and cheap housing 50+ miles away after WWII paved the way, as it were, for Californians and their automobiles. Everyone wanted to live in the suburbs in the '50s--I know my folks and my friends' folks did.

I do not know how to unscramble this particular egg. But $200 billion might be a start.

Quick question for all y'all: If we could sprinkle some magic dust to have an exceptional high-speed rail or tube, would you take public transportation between LA and the Bay Area or LA and Vegas if the travel time were reasonable, on time, and the rail cars maintained and clean?

the answer to whether a train from SF to LA would be used could be found by looking at the NE corridor of amtrak. the NEC is their most popular and used line. many even commute from DE to DC or fro DE to NYC on it so a partial answer would be yes a line from SF to LA is viable. that said the NEC of amtrak is not the end all, people still drive, take buses and even fly the same route so in that regard a rail link from SF to LA would probably only get a some people to change their habits.
all that said, despite the NEC being the most heavily used lines on the amtrak system the line still operates at a massive loss.
an example of the challenges of operating a railroad
Amtrak Needs $38 Billion for Northeast Corridor Repairs

 

[nwdiver]

I do not know how to unscramble this particular egg. But $200 billion might be a start.

I'd support that. Exxon can fund the construction of a hyper loop. They could call it the Exxon Exxpress

 

[kort677]

I'd support that. Exxon can fund the construction of a hyper loop. They could call it the Exxon Exxpress

sure they could fund it, but why would they? your thinking is afflicted by altitude

 

[nwdiver]

sure they could fund it, but why would they? your thinking is afflicted by altitude

My thinking is influenced by history... yours is obviously completely obscured by blind ideology.

They'll pay if they're ordered to by the courts.

 

[kort677]

My thinking is influenced by history... yours is obviously completely obscured by blind ideology.

They'll pay if they're ordered to by the courts.

history? who's version? try using real facts and data rather than the nonsense that you've been posting

 

[bxr140]

Quick question for all y'all: If we could sprinkle some magic dust to have an exceptional high-speed rail or tube, would you take public transportation between LA and the Bay Area or LA and Vegas if the travel time were reasonable, on time, and the rail cars maintained and clean?

I drive from the Bay Area to the north side of LA almost monthly. If I could get a TGV/Eurostar/etc experience at a reasonable price, I'd most likely take a train/tube instead of sitting in traffic trying to get out of Dodge on a Friday afternoon. The trick would be figuring out the 'last mile' connections. For people that fly, a train/tube would be different than getting to and from the airport. For people that drive, current infrastructure sucks for switching to mass transit. The solution is basically Uber. Or an unpaid Uber, like a friend/family member.

LA<-->Vegas doesn't have that problem, on one end anyway.

 

[nwdiver]

history? who's version? try using real facts and data rather than the nonsense that you've been posting

??? Tobacco companies have settled for >$200B in damages.... is there some dispute over that fact?

 

[LosAltosChuck]

The idea would be to set precedent... I would love to see PR, FL or Houston take these monsters to court... but they're a bit busy trying to rebuild. And Houston would rather drown than hurt the oil industry...

Picking one weather event and shouting “GLOBAL WARMING” is absurd. Saying that one season of active hurricanes “proves” your case is similarly absurd. No court would entertain such an argument. (You have significant obstacles: a) it (Irma) wasn’t the largest hurricane ever [but the press loved saying “largest since satellites”, um, WTF?]; b) it isn’t the most active hurricane season on record; c) none of the hurricanes that struck the US were the worst on record; d) the previous 12 years of very low hurricane activity as atmospheric CO2 increased is... problematic. )

Why was the Houston storm so bad? Global warming? Not likely. There are a number of reasons for Houston:

1. A very strong storm. (Not the first, and not unprecedented for the gulf.)
2. Frontal systems that caused the storm to stall over the area rather than move on, resulting in far more rain dumping on Houston.
3. Unwise city planning. Houston is a flood plain. Houston has been unconstrained in approving construction, resulting in ill-advised sprawl without properly addressing the flood issues.

So having a large hurricane hit Houston is not at all unprecedented. Having unfortunate weather systems in the vicinity steering a storm in a less than optimal path is not unprecedented (most hurricanes are steered in a direction someone doesn’t want). Having bad city planning is sad.

Good luck getting the verdict you want in an actual court of law. Bring a mop, because it will be bloody (and not their blood).

 

[nwdiver]

Good luck getting the verdict you want in an actual court of law. Bring a mop, because it will be bloody (and not their blood).

History and physics would beg to differ. The link between stronger storms and CO2 is stronger than the link between Tobacco and Lung Cancer. Who won that battle?

 

[bxr140]

Picking one weather event and shouting “GLOBAL WARMING” is absurd.

Nobody has ever claimed that a single weather event is the direct result of global warming. Then again, you and everyone who has made that argument before you know that to be the case; misrepresenting the opposition is the only way to make your point...

What is really absurd is the blantent and in fact flat out nefarious rejection of obvious data and science. A significant cause for the current global warming trend is man. That is factually indisputable. Warmer global temperatures increases the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather. Indisputable. The global trend in extreme weather is increasing. Indisputable.

Ergo, man shoulders some responsibility for the increasing trend in extreme weather events.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., are suing five major oil companies, blaming them for the effects of climate change.
The cities announced Wednesday they each filed a lawsuit in their respective county courts against Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and BP. The lawsuits by two of California’s largest cities add to an emerging legal strategy to try to hold individual fossil fuel companies responsible for rising sea levels, extreme weather and other effects of human-induced climate change.

San Francisco, Oakland sue oil companies over climate change

Why is SF and Oakland so special - how about a $5 per gallon gas tax and no income tax for the whole country? Simple Tax Plan - right? $8 to $10 per gallon will change behaviors.

 

[LosAltosChuck]

Nobody has ever claimed that a single weather event is the direct result of global warming. Then again, you and everyone who has made that argument before you know that to be the case; misrepresenting the opposition is the only way to make your point...

What is really absurd is the blantent and in fact flat out nefarious rejection of obvious data and science. A significant cause for the current global warming trend is man. That is factually indisputable. Warmer global temperatures increases the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather. Indisputable. The global trend in extreme weather is increasing. Indisputable.

Ergo, man shoulders some responsibility for the increasing trend in extreme weather events.

My comment is completely directed to the notion that one could win a lawsuit over damages in Houston based on the claim that the hurricane was caused by oil companies. That dog ain’t gonna hunt. You can imply whatever you want, or group me into some category if it makes you happy, but you’re missing the point.

You say “Nobody has ever claimed that a single weather event is the direct result of global warming.” And yet, you are siding (apparently) with nwdiver who is doing exactly that. He wants Houston to sue oil companies over Harvey. I merely stated that such a suit would fail exactly because one cannot draw a line between a single weather event and global warming.

The climate is changing (as it has constantly since the beginning of our atmosphere). I’m happy to agree with your final statement, especially that “man shoulders...”. That doesn’t support the ridiculous notion that we should start suing oil companies over weather events.

 

[croman]

It remains to be seen if public nuisance is an adequate vehicle for holding fossil fuel companies liable for their fraudulent misrepresentation regarding climate science and their negligence in producing and distributing a product known to endanger human lives and critical habitat. The case has merit but prior precedent is troubling in terms of Clean Air Act displacing these kinds of claims. These cities should have sent a Notice of Intent to Sue under the Clean Air Act to Pruitt's EPA and waited 60 days and filed suit themselves and added, as pendent claims, the state based nuisance action. That way they could use Massachusetts v. EPA's Endangerment Finding to skip to liability and avoid the question of preemption.

 

[nwdiver]

My comment is completely directed to the notion that one could win a lawsuit over damages in Houston based on the claim that the hurricane was caused by oil companies. That dog ain’t gonna hunt. You can imply whatever you want, or group me into some category if it makes you happy, but you’re missing the point.

Cancer existed before cigarettes. Some people that never smoked got cancer and some people that smoked never got cancer. Tobacco dramatically increases the of getting cancer... that's why the tobacco companies paid >$200B in damages. The evidence is far stronger that CO2 >400ppm has made and continues to make Flooding, Fires, Droughts and other extreme weather more frequent and more damaging. That's why fossil fuel companies need to be held liable. I agree a Carbon Tax would be better but that's not happening.

Ironically the Trump administrations denial of AGW is what's going to make these lawsuits feasible. The courts have deferred to government action in the past... they can't really kick that can down the road anymore.

 

[rays427]

Take a look at the actual data on Hurricanes to hit the US since 1850 and you will see that there has not been any real increase in the number of total hurricanes or major hurricanes (those from 3-5). In fact the number to hit the US from 2010-2017 has been fewer than most years. You can see the data here: TCFAQ E23) What is the complete list of continental U.S. landfalling

 

[nwdiver]

Take a look at the actual data on Hurricanes to hit the US since 1850 and you will see that there has not been any real increase in the number of total hurricanes or major hurricanes (those from 3-5). In fact the number to hit the US from 2010-2017 has been fewer than most years. You can see the data here: TCFAQ E23) What is the complete list of continental U.S. landfalling

Hurricanes in general are relatively rare events... let's make the assumption that there are fewer strong storms. There aren't; but lets assume that the dice fell in a way that there are. Let's assume we've been lucky....

Does CO2 warm the oceans? Absolutely.

Do Warm oceans fuel Hurricanes? Yes.

........ shouldn't we stop loading the dice?

 

[AMPd]

@nwdiver you keep pushing for a lawsuit or a fine against big oil companies, let's say that happens (it won't because that's highly unreasonable) what then?
What happens after that? Does the world magically stop burning oil?

I'd honestly like to know what you think will happen after exxon gets fined? Please post the events that follow that'll lead to people suddenly not needing to fuel up their cars, or trucks no longer burning diesel, or airplanes no longer using jet fuel.

 

[nwdiver]

@nwdiver you keep pushing for a lawsuit or a fine against big oil companies, let's say that happens (it won't because that's highly unreasonable) what then?
What happens after that? Does the world magically stop burning oil?

I'd honestly like to know what you think will happen after exxon gets fined? Please post the events that follow that'll lead to people suddenly not needing to fuel up their cars, or trucks no longer burning diesel, or airplanes no longer using jet fuel.

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? What happened to tobacco? Anything that still requires diesel would get more expensive which will accelerate alternatives.