San Francisco and Oakland Cities charge that fossil fuel companies "stole a page from the Big Tobacco playbook" with misleading campaigns and should pay for damage from rising seas.
From the article:
“‘It is appropriate that people are now looking to the courts, instead of legislators, to help hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their contributions to sea level rise and other climate impacts,’ Kimmell told the East Bay Times.”
Knowing what it takes to become a judge, I can only hope that this optimism isn’t misplaced. With that said, any signs of pushback are welcome.
JULIANA v. U.S. CLIMATE LAWSUIT
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
– U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken"
Trial Date Set for Children’s Climate Lawsuit Against U.S. Government
The judge also agreed to let the country’s biggest fossil fuel lobbies withdraw from the case, which may shield them from having to turn over documents.
Our Children’s Trust organization has been winning against the Federal Government AND Big Oil, together, for several years now. This case focuses on their Right to a healthy future atmosphere.
If they can continue their string of successes in establishing a healthy world as a Right, then the next step --to sue for damages make legal sense.
However, that their case has gotten this far is surprising.
We don’t have to win each of these cases, we just have to keep it going to have an impact.
Ya, Yes, Yess, Yaaa, climate criminals imprisonment. Will that be green baloney, or rotten soup for dinner?
Oil and gas are the foundation of modern civilization. How hypocritical to enjoy the benefits of modern civilization then sue the companies that make it possible!
Primitive caveman used crude tools because they were unable to go to the store and buy manufactured ones.
Oil and gas have been proven to be primitive and harmful to our health by the renewable energy sources we can now take advantage of through technology from the sun and wind and geothermal.
These renewable energy sources are free and non polluting. All that is required is the infrastructure.
Are we to continue using something that is not cost effective and is killing us all to boot, just because we have used it in the past?
Forgive me for above post; for, cruelty, or more cruelty I believe is never the answer.
If renewables were cost effective we would use them more. But generally speaking they are not cost effective.
It is because renewables are so cheap that we have this battle. How can a corporation make you pay for the sunshine/wind/sea movement that powers your home and business? The coal industry has never worried about its waste products, just kept on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Industry has always done that, dumping waste all around, onto the ground, into waterways, into the sea, into the air until the poison starts killing people, plants, fish and wildlife and laws are enforced to make it stop. Usually they don’t bother cleaning up what they have already dumped, their directors disappear with the money, the gutted shell declares bankruptcy and taxpayers pay for the cleanup.
If one looks at total life cycle Le cost, renewables are already so much cheaper than fossil fuel that it would make sense for federal government to tax greenhouse emissions as CO2 equivalent phasing tax in up to maximum revenue rate to avoid shocking the economy and dividing revenue among helping workers who lose jobs working for fossil fuel firms get new jobs, buying fossil fuel reserves as mineral rights so mining firms don’t get stuck with stranded inventory, and subsidizing use of all sorts of renewable energy to generate electricity and distribute it to customers.