Small Claims suits agains Exxon and others for AGW disception?

[nwdiver]

The cigarette analogy is a good one to a point although it is far easier suing a poisonous recreational product manufacturer than those creating products that billions of people currently depend on for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, transportation and energy etc.

There is no evidence that using oil for food, shelter or medicine causes climate change; there are alternatives to using oil for transportation and energy. Exxons lies are a big reason we're still dependent on oil for energy and they need to be held accountable. Let the litigation begin.

If Exxon had been honest 30 years ago we could have started working harder towards kicking this addiction earlier and the merits for any legal action would be extremely weak. The fact that they lied is ~99% of the case.

The overriding sad news is that whenever you have 7 billion people doing anything, burning oil, natural gas, raise livestock or even burning fire wood for heating and cooking, the side effects to the planet are undesirable. Heck, having 7 billion people brush their teeth, eliminate pharmaceutical laden urine or purchase\consume manufactured goods is detrimental.

There's a difference between 'undesirable' and 'catastrophic'. 7B people brushing their teeth isn't going to super charge a hurricane and cause >$200B in damage to the gulf coast or potential destroy the great barrier reef or increase the average number of days in WA >85F by 200%.......

There are also alternatives. Massive amounts of wind and solar might have 'side effects' but they're ~99% less than our addiction to fools fuel.

 

[Topher]

As the claimant you have to prove beyond a doubt your case.

Nope. Burden of proof in small claims court is "preponderance of evidence".

Thank you kindly.

 

[SDRick]

Yes, there's a difference between 'undesirable' and 'catastrophic' effects on the environment but it needs to be quantified. Hurricanes and tornadoes were most assuredly catastrophic before Exxon.

Let's assume that the assumptions posited are 100% correct, Exxon lied and greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. How does one attach damages to the tort? What percentage of climate change is due to petrochemical transportation? Of that, what percentage is allocated to Exxon?

They would argue that climate change is influenced by factors in addition to transportation. Deforestation, solar cycles, blacktop and the urban concrete heat island effect. Black carbon and ash from Wood-burning for heat or cooking, forest fires and volcanoes all contribute. (One fireplace puts out as much 2.5 particulate as approximately 100 ICE cars). Methane from livestock and other sources (apparently far more volatile than carbon) is also a contributing factor. How does one to begin to allocate liability and blame? Exxon may even argue that the Earth's poles were tropical and that the earth's climate cooled and heated many times before and that they had nothing to do with it.

 

[Topher]

Exxon may even argue that the Earth's poles were tropical and that the earth's climate cooled and heated many times before and that they had nothing to do with it.

Ah yes. The "people have died many times before, therefore I couldn't have murdered that guy" defense.

Thank you kindly.

 

[nwdiver]

Ah yes. The "people have died many times before, therefore I couldn't have murdered that guy" defense.

Thank you kindly.

Not to mention perjury. The evidence is overwhelming that Exxon was well aware that CO2 is the dominant forcing mechanism.

 

[nwdiver]

Sister needs a sprinkler system to keep the grass alive. Stupid 60 day drought. Good thing Exxon has deep pockets

 

[Topher]

Sister needs a sprinkler system to keep the grass alive.

If you need to bring up underground water to keep your grass alive, you shouldn't have grass. Replace it with something more appropriate to your climate, preferably food.

Thank you kindly.

 

[nwdiver]

If you need to bring up underground water to keep your grass alive, you shouldn't have grass. Replace it with something more appropriate to your climate, preferably food.

Thank you kindly.

We're in WA state. Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. We need grass for erosion control in the winters. We still get a TON of rain... we're also getting droughts now too. THANKS EXXON!

 

[SDRick]

California is also going through a drought. Some are predicting a mega drought similar to the 500 year one from 800 to 1300 A.D.

Apparently tree ring evidence from California shows extreme drought conditions for most of these 500 years. Historically droughts and desert creation have been caused by things other than Exxon.

 

[nwdiver]

Historically droughts and desert creation have been caused by things other than Exxon.

Lung cancer also existed before cigarettes.... smoking dramatically increases the odds. Just like our addiction to fools fuel dramatically increases droughts and floods...

 

[James Anders]

Oh please...

 

[EinSV]

More catastrophic events -- fires, floods, hurricanes, pestilence and so on -- translate into everyone paying more for insurance. Insurance companies worry about global warming, because they have to pay more claims. They also have all those green eyeshade types who are always running numbers. Just sayin'.

 

[nwdiver]

More catastrophic events -- fires, floods, hurricanes, pestilence and so on -- translate into everyone paying more for insurance. Insurance companies worry about global warming, because they have to pay more claims. They also have all those green eyeshade types who are always running numbers. Just sayin'.

I have a feeling there's probably a conflict of interest there... if XYZ insurance company goes after a fossil fuel major for damages it will lose clients. Exxon would be unlikely to purchase insurance from a company that is suing it... The tactic of the insurance companies appears to be mitigation instead of reparations.

Why upset your largest clients when you can just squeeze more out of middle class policy holders with higher rates?

 

[SDRick]

Lung cancer also existed before cigarettes.... smoking dramatically increases the odds. Just like our addiction to fools fuel dramatically increases droughts and floods...

Cancer did exist before cigarettes. Most likely caused by cooking and heating with wood, but the science isn't settled on pre-cigarette cancer. (Wood smoke is more toxic than from burning most fossil fuels). We still do not understand why some people don't get cancer smoking cigarettes. The science isn't even settled here either.

Scientists predicted that the number of hurricanes would be increasing. Most statistics do not support this yet. One could argue that the events are more catastrophic from an insurance payout perspective. Once adjusted for inflation and population, damage (and deaths) on a per capita basis may be stable or decreasing.

How can the science be settled and the debate over when no one knows to what extent human each human activity contributes. Science isn't even settled on how much natural phenomenon contributes to climate change much less human activity. Debate still continues over what the ideal climate is. Debate still continues over what optimum CO2 concentration is. Debate still continues over how solar activity influences climate and even our magnetic poles.

No one is saying that the climate is not changing and no one is saying that humans do not negatively influence the environment. Scientists predict many things. Growing up I remember magazine cover stories predicting the upcoming Ice Age, famine, pestilence, superbugs and nuclear winter. To say the science or debate is settled is a disservice to scientists.

 

[nwdiver]

Cancer did exist before cigarettes. Most likely caused by cooking and heating with wood, but the science isn't settled on pre-cigarette cancer. (Wood smoke is more toxic than from burning most fossil fuels). We still do not understand why some people don't get cancer smoking cigarettes. The science isn't even settled here either.

Scientists predicted that the number of hurricanes would be increasing. Most statistics do not support this yet. One could argue that the events are more catastrophic from an insurance payout perspective. Once adjusted for inflation and population, damage (and deaths) on a per capita basis may be stable or decreasing.

How can the science be settled and the debate over when no one knows to what extent human each human activity contributes. Science isn't even settled on how much natural phenomenon contributes to climate change much less human activity. Debate still continues over what the ideal climate is. Debate still continues over what optimum CO2 concentration is. Debate still continues over how solar activity influences climate and even our magnetic poles.

No one is saying that the climate is not changing and no one is saying that humans do not negatively influence the environment. Scientists predict many things. Growing up I remember magazine cover stories predicting the upcoming Ice Age, famine, pestilence, superbugs and nuclear winter. To say the science or debate is settled is a disservice to scientists.

You're conflating what is and is not known.

FACT: Cigarettes increase the probability of lung cancer.
FACT: CO2 traps more heat (that's simple thermodynamics)
FACT: The intensity of ALL storms including Hurricanes increases with temperature (that's simple thermodynamics)
FACT: The earth orbits the sun

^This is where the debate is over*^

It was never predicted the hurricane frequency would increase. Only the severity. The fact that we're unsure about some things like the actual mechanism of lung cancer. Doesn't mean we're uncertain about others... We DO understand the mechanism behind Global Warming... so the case against the fools fuel majors is actually much STRONGER than the case against tobacco.

And the whole global cooling canard? Really? That was NEVER a consensus... even the minority was based on the projection of sulfates increasing. Which was solved by the clean air act.

*Yes, if you want to be uselessly pedantic the debate is never 'over'. But at some point you have accepted science that is no longer worth debating. At some point the time for debate ends and the time for action begins. For AGW that was >60 years ago.

 

[Topher]

We're in WA state. Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. We need grass for erosion control in the winters. We still get a TON of rain... we're also getting droughts now too. THANKS EXXON!

Trees do a much better job of erosion control than grass. And if you only need erosion control in winter there are plenty of winter grasses (winter rye being the favorite in my neck of the woods) that can be turned under in spring to allow replanting of annual vegetables, and improve the soil at the same time.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

How can the science be settled and the debate over when no one knows to what extent human each human activity contributes.

Denialist drivel.

We know with high certainty a lot about AGW, while attribution is always a preponderance of evidence.

 

[SDRick]

I think we are in agreement since you only stated a short list of FACTS. That leaves plenty of issues for further scientific inquiry and what to do about it.

(It was predicted that the number and intensity of hurricanes would increase. So far, the numbers are down and I don't think intensity records have been broken).

 

[nwdiver]

Trees do a much better job of erosion control than grass. And if you only need erosion control in winter there are plenty of winter grasses (winter rye being the favorite in my neck of the woods) that can be turned under in spring to allow replanting of annual vegetables, and improve the soil at the same time.

Thank you kindly.

Trees also shade solar panels The aquifers up here are sustainable so pulling water from underground isn't as bad as it is in CA. We get a TON of rain in the winter... the summer droughts are just lasting longer and longer.

 

[nwdiver]

I think we are in agreement since you only stated a short list of FACTS. That leaves plenty of issues for further scientific inquiry and what to do about it.

The entire premise for action is based on a short list of facts... that's why I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every-time see some moron driving off in a brand new fools fuel burning POS... WTF is wrong with people? What issues?

FACT: CO2 traps more heat (that's simple thermodynamics)
FACT: The intensity of ALL storms including Hurricanes increases with temperature (that's simple thermodynamics)

I....I don't think we need a committee to decide that less of a bad thing is good.....