Among the nightmare scenarios of global warming, there’s one only now coming into view – and it’s definitely manmade: As predictable as the rising seas, we can expect a flood of class-action lawsuits trying to cash in on the issue.
Climate change promises to be “a lucrative new field” for the tort bar reports the Newark Star-Ledger. A Rutgers law professor predicts that global warming will make for “one of the biggest legal practices in the next 20 years.” (The Star-Ledger, 7/8/07)
The opinion is shared by the president of the World Resources Institute: “Companies that generate significant carbon emissions,” he warns, “face the threat of lawsuits similar to those common in the tobacco, pharmaceutical and asbestos industries.” (The Toronto Star, 4/29/07)
And if you thought asbestos and tobacco litigation were profitable, try to imagine all the “mass tort” cases that global warming will inspire. Energy companies, coal mines, any firm at all that generates carbon dioxide – these industries and many more can expect to find themselves accused of causing climate change.
Some law firms already have “climate-change groups” studying the possibilities. Another hint of things to come was a class action suit was filed on behalf of Mississippi residents against oil and coal companies after Hurricane Katrina – arguing that company emissions caused the climate change that caused the hurricane. (Star-Ledger, 7/8/07).
In Alaska, the Inuits claim that their island is sinking because of global warming. The aggrieved islanders haven’t decided who to sue yet – but they’ve got a Houston trial lawyer working on it. (Star-Ledger, 7/8/07)
All of which proves nothing at all about the actual causes or dangers of global warming. It’s just more evidence of a climate of greed and opportunism in the trial bar. And that’s one climate that never changes.
14 Comments
This might actually be a good thing, long run. These cases are going to make their way through the courts. The Env. Wackos will do their best to use this venue to advance the cause; the plaintiff’s bar will parasite to make some cash. But, I suspect, with establishing causation (or even correlation) being so difficult, and experts varying so widely, in this case, settlements will be difficult to achieve. Exxon, to name only one, will not fold easily, having an army of lawyers waiting to make an example of some unsuspecting greeny. Just my opinion. This could really be the haymaker which casts the wackos to the junk-pile of history.
This Global warming theory is getting out of hand. There is concrete scientific evedince that the occasional warming of the planet is normal, and even necessary; and is usually followed by a cooling period to include the freezing of most of europe. Volcanoes produce millions of tons per day of carbon than man is even able to create , but it is our fault? If tort lawers are allowed to do this it will continue to lead to the erosion of america and basic human values.
Todd Rogers,
You must be new here. As much as I like optimism, the track record is just not good.
Agreed, a little optimistic. Recall that Dow Corning was put into bankruptcy even though four medical studies (IIRC) failed to find a connection between silicone implants & health issues reported by patients.
I believe there is also a Presidential candidate who made a lot of money suing obstetricians for causing a disease that was almost certainly not their fault.
Where’s the downside to the nightmare scenario?
the downside? Well, if you’re like the Islamo-radicals, and want to see civilization cast back, oh…say 700-800 years, then no, there is no downside.
I suppose it depends on how your paradigm defines progress.
Burning the remains of billions of dinosaurs is good, not bad…say it with me, Burn dino-carcass-good, prevent building of refineries-bad…repeat, now in chorus!
First, the nuclear industry in the 1970s had over half of its power plants canceled by utilities–caused largely by delays. While many of those delays were due to ineptitude on the part of the industry or Nuclear Regulatory Commission (particularly their tendency to start building plants while they were still being designed), a significant number were due to lawsuits. See the Seabrook Unit 1 nuclear power plant (or its twin Unit 2’s litigation-caused cancellation) or the Shoreham plant, which was completed only to never be turned on. So no, innocence is no defense against the real purpose of lawsuits–defunding the opposition. While the industry is partly protected by the Price-Anderson Act, Price-Anderson doesn’t apply to disputes over licensing procedure.
Second, not emitting carbon dioxide is no defense against lawsuits alleging the emission of carbon dioxide. There’s a technique called life-cycle analysis that these people use to trace all the energy used by a facility back to something that emitted carbon dioxide. For example, a nuclear power plant does not emit carbon dioxide, but the construction equipment used to build the plant did. Thus, the plant is blamed for the carbon dioxide emissions, even though construction is not in and of itself contingent on diesel use, and diesel use is not contingent on releasing the byproducts to the environment. More here, here and here.
No, polluter-pays isn’t good enough any more, apparently.
I would think they would go after the largest producer of greenhouse gasses – China.
Why not just mandate that the losers of g.w. cases have to pay their damages to the charity of their choice?
For that matter, why not allow any punitive damages in any case to be paid the same way, as well?
IANAL, for sure, but I see a trend in legal reform proposals in that they seem to all try to outgame the gamers, which looks like a mug’s game to me. Instead, why not remove the incentive to game the system in the first place?
I await the revelation that I am being incredibly naive in some way, so be patient with me.
Why not fight fire with fire? We can start off by suing Al Gore for using 10 times the amount of energy as the average person. We can then go on and sue the Hollywood crowd for all of the excess energy they use with their multiple mansions and private jets. This should be fun!
“There’s a technique called life-cycle analysis that these people use to trace all the energy used by a facility back to something that emitted carbon dioxide. For example, a nuclear power plant does not emit carbon dioxide, but the construction equipment used to build the plant did.”
Will it occur to a judge that life-cycle analysis puts the blame on plaintiffs as well as defendants?
These suits will be utterly ludicrous.
“I await the revelation that I am being incredibly naive in some way, so be patient with me.”
Let me help you with that.
Your suggestion, especially with regards to punitives, is spot on, of course… and has been suggested (in numerous variations) by many, many people. All you have to do is find a way to PASS a law to do it… Good luck with that. (Is that sufficint revelation? There’s more available if you need it… You know, just trying help out.)
“These suits will be utterly ludicrous.”
Yes, of course they will… but that dosen’t mean they won’t WORK. See, for examples, the tobacco settlement and the (already referenced) breast implant ligitation.
Deoxy,
Thanks. And now .. further naivete (in case we needed more!):
Presuming we had even one, just one, fed govt elected one time, and genuinely committed to tort reform, then they could pass such a law. But none of them do.
Naivete reigning strong now, what is the pt of trying to fix the system, by implementing micromanaged rules on what can/cannot be attmepted and how, if the real prob is that the govt passing the laws is just snowing us anyway?
Why bother? Shouldn’t all efforts first be directed to a public campaign, with zero wasted on lobbying govt for reform that it would only water down to nothingness anyway?
“Yes, of course they will… but that dosen’t mean they won’t WORK. See, for examples, the tobacco settlement and the (already referenced) breast implant litigation.”
But those are very different. The tobacco “litigation” was pursued by governments with the power to shut down tobacco companies. They had leverage.
As for the implants cases, they addressed conduct that not every human engaged in, and conduct that not every human benefited from (at least in the short run).
Someone mentioned a “technique called life-cycle analysis that these people use to trace all the energy used by a facility back to something that emitted carbon dioxide.” Under that technique, every defendant can legitimately implead every other human within the jurisdiction. It would be an administrative nightmare. The judge and all jurors will be defendants. It can’t work.