Major Oil Companies Face First 'Climate Death' Lawsuit 137
The daughter of a Seattle woman who died during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave has filed the first wrongful death lawsuit directly linking fossil fuel companies to an individual's climate-related death.
Misti Leon is suing seven oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, claiming they caused her mother Juliana Leon's death from hyperthermia on June 28, 2021, when temperatures reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit. The lawsuit alleges the companies created a "fossil fuel-dependent economy" that resulted in "more frequent and destructive weather disasters and foreseeable loss of human life." Attribution science research determined the 2021 heatwave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-made climate change and was at least 150 times rarer without warming.
The case seeks damages and funding for a public education campaign about fossil fuels' role in planetary heating.
Misti Leon is suing seven oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, claiming they caused her mother Juliana Leon's death from hyperthermia on June 28, 2021, when temperatures reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit. The lawsuit alleges the companies created a "fossil fuel-dependent economy" that resulted in "more frequent and destructive weather disasters and foreseeable loss of human life." Attribution science research determined the 2021 heatwave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-made climate change and was at least 150 times rarer without warming.
The case seeks damages and funding for a public education campaign about fossil fuels' role in planetary heating.
Publicity (Score:3, Interesting)
But the current supreme Court is hopelessly corrupt so it'll die there. It might make a headline or two which is probably the main point. The oil industry can't settle on something like this because once they start there's no end to it. The damage climate change is causing is in the tens of trillions. The only way the industry can survive is by continuing to externalize their costs onto all of us.
Re:Publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
> t'll get shot down at the supreme Court and everyone involved knows that
SCOTUS only hears cases that related to either lawsuits involving the government or government officials, or matters of law/legality (including constitutional/civil rights).
The defendants would have to try to argue they have a right to pollute or that it's illegal to sue them or something, which would actually end up as a different case all together, meaning this specific case will not end up before the Supreme Court.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's cute that you think we want to hear your commentary on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can give the sweet summer child thing a rest for a while.
Those kids are tired, and their moms are pretty pissed at us as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second part of that is correct, though the first is not. Any cases could come before the Supreme Court, though a great many will involve the government (executive branch) in some way. This is kind of a selection bias, though, because the government has the resources to appeal (or fight appeals) all the way to the Supreme Court, and
Re: (Score:2)
> The second part of that is correct, though the first is not.
Article 3, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more Stat
Re: (Score:2)
> application of law(s) used in the case and whether those laws are compatible with the constitution
What laws, exactly? Plaintiff is accusing defendant of being responsible for the death of a family member through negligence. What is there to interpret the applicability of law for in a lawsuit that does not allege any laws were broken? Are you suggesting that they appeal all the way to SCOTUS on the idea that it's unconstitutional to settle grievances in civil court?
We are definitely not saying the same
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think this is whats being argued here. Its a Tort suit, so its going to really be more akin to a personal injury claim.
Thats not to say it won't end up in the Supreme Court as its invoking potentially novel legal theories, nor that there won't be potential constitutional questions, but I dont think they are arguing a constitutional right, rather that its simply "your client hurt my client, and we want compensation", so the legal question will be "what responsibility does the oil company have to actio
Re: Publicity (Score:2)
The suit is also asking for funding for education programs about climate change. I doubt that part will make it to the SCOTUS. Probably the tort part won't either. The reach of fossil fuel companies is king, regardless of what President appointed these judges.
Re: Publicity (Score:2)
King=long . Love autocorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a complete asshole. "Nice weather" is not the opposite of "heat that kills".
Re: (Score:2)
You are a complete asshole. "Nice weather" is not the opposite of "heat that kills".
I think it is stated for the shock value.
The overarching question is who is responsible for what, when and how.
Did the decedent use anything that ever contributed to AGW? Did she ever drive or ride in a car, or use public transportation? Did she heat her place with anything derived from fossil fuels? If so, she directly contributed to the problem.
We're all part of the problem to some degree. (pun intended)
AGW is real, and it is happening. But we're all responsible.
The only thing this case has go
Re: (Score:2)
Has she ever used anything derived from the discovery of fire? Did her ancestors use fire to cook food or survive a harsh winter? Hell, she's partly responsible because one of her ancestors actually exhaled some CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite certain that her ancestors from that far back weren't using oil, coal, or gas in such quantities as to significantly impact CO2 levels.
Also, CO2 exhaled from living things are a closed loop, and does not increase CO2 levels. It is the previously sequestered fossil fuels being burned wholesale that is increasing the CO2 levels.
Oil companies' role in decline of transit (Score:2)
Did she ever drive or ride in a car, or use public transportation?
"I wanted to use public transportation to avoid the pollution of using a personal car, but public transportation was made unavailable to me in part because of the actions of defendants." Compare defendant Chevron's role in the present case to the role of Chevron (then called Standard Oil of California) and Phillips Petroleum in the demise of streetcars in transit systems in California [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Did she ever drive or ride in a car, or use public transportation?
"I wanted to use public transportation to avoid the pollution of using a personal car, but public transportation was made unavailable to me in part because of the actions of defendants." Compare defendant Chevron's role in the present case to the role of Chevron (then called Standard Oil of California) and Phillips Petroleum in the demise of streetcars in transit systems in California [wikipedia.org].
Might be a good argument if there was zero emissions in the electric streetcars.
My point, just in case anyone is interested is that we all contribute to the emissions of greenhouse gases. Even people who believe they are 100 percent green. Unless they are hunter gatherers and make no use of anything civilization provides.
The point at the very base is that we need to move forward, not just bitch and play sueyou sueme. But I suppose. art makes some people feel warm and cozy about how good they are.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative to diesel and petrol doesn't have to produce zero pollution. It can produce substantially less pollution. It's a lot easier to scrub a handful of power plants than to scrub millions of tailpipes. Not to mention that if the USA still had electric light rail in this century, a lot of it would run on wind and solar.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to diesel and petrol doesn't have to produce zero pollution. It can produce substantially less pollution. It's a lot easier to scrub a handful of power plants than to scrub millions of tailpipes. Not to mention that if the USA still had electric light rail in this century, a lot of it would run on wind and solar.
Oy, I'm not making an argument on who makes more or less. Just that we're all guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
That and we need to accept that nothing will bring Kurt Cobain back [wikipedia.org]. Cutting pollution now buys us time to cut pollution further later.
Re: (Score:2)
That and we need to accept that nothing will bring Kurt Cobain back [wikipedia.org]. Cutting pollution now buys us time to cut pollution further later.
I hope you aren't saying I'm making that argument. I'm all about cutting carbon. My point that probably got lost in this is that suing the major oil companies isn't going to be terribly productive.
Now yes, if we sued them and shut every oil company down, yes, that would really have a big impact on carbon emissions.
It would have quite the impact on the country that did that however.
Perhaps rather than the game that I'm playing is that the woman suing does not have clean hands, we might take another
Re: (Score:2)
STFU, shitsucker. We're not talking about nice weather. How 'bout we cut off your HVAC, and see how you feel in a week?
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves. It was their own research back in the 30s 40s and 50s that got the ball rolling on our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.
I was unaware that it went back as far as the 30s. But I do know they recognized by the 50s that AGW was going to be a problem. By the 60s they had models for predicting temperature rise that were still remarkably accurate up to a decade or so ago.
All that to say that they aren't just guilty, but that there have been decades of ongoing malice aforethought. The petroleum corporations should be taken over by the appropriate governments, the C-suite occupants should be imprisoned, and any payments to investors
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves. It was their own research back in the 30s 40s and 50s that got the ball rolling on our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.
I was unaware that it went back as far as the 30s. But I do know they recognized by the 50s that AGW was going to be a problem. By the 60s they had models for predicting temperature rise that were still remarkably accurate up to a decade or so ago.
All that to say that they aren't just guilty, but that there have been decades of ongoing malice aforethought. The petroleum corporations should be taken over by the appropriate governments, the C-suite occupants should be imprisoned, and any payments to investors should be cancelled. That will never happen, of course, but this case might move the public discussion in the right direction.
The energy retention effects of an atmosphere and its relationship to its gaseous composition was known in the 1820's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . We've known it for over 200 years now, we've known it before the Industrial Revolution, radiative forcing isn't rocket surgery. It is pretty simple physics.
But therein lies the rub. Do we just go back to hunter gatherer days? That would be a hard sell, my guess is even Greta Thunberg doesn't want to give up on her personal contributions to AGW.
But a
We are Responsible, not Oil Companies (Score:1, Insightful)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves
That's not true because climate and weather are not the same. The best you can say is that use of their products increased the chance of a heatwave but not that they caused any specific heatwave. Then there is the question of exactly how much more likely did use of their specific products increase it - a company like BP is not liable for the increase in heatwave chance caused by burning forests, deforesting the Amazon, burning coal and peat, producing cement etc. since none of that involves use of their pr
Re:We are Responsible, not Oil Companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but what is also undeniable is that measures to wean ourselves off fossil fuel dependence would have worked has action been taken when this whole fiasco was discovered more than 50 years ago.
Sorry but horseshit. We have known about it with extreme certainty 30 years ago as well and no one did shit. We didn't care until weather started getting extreme and we started seeing the real results of our inaction. If the companies can be accused of anything it's burying their own research, but to claim that we would have done something is to live in the fantasy world.
Drill baby drill. Or is Trump and his ilk across the world who don't give a shit about climate change also the fault of the oil industry?
Climate Knowledge Different 50 years ago (Score:2)
what is also undeniable is that measures to wean ourselves off fossil fuel dependence would have worked has action been taken when this whole fiasco was discovered more than 50 years ago.
50 years ago we had no clue that humans were the drivng force of climate change. Yes, 50 years ago we knew about climate change but they prevailing thought back then was that we were on the cusp of an ice age and that warming from carbon was going to delay the onset of the ice age but that the natural climate cycle would dominate human interference - indeed that was the prevailing thought even as little as 30 years ago. Even when it became clear that the world was warming more rapidly than those models pre
Re: (Score:2)
Not just their products, but their misinformation campaigns and them sitting on data showing that fossil fuels were causing climate change, and that pollution was causing harm.
Such lawsuits have been successful in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming is not the responsibility of any one company or country: it is the collective responsibility of humanity. We are the ones burning fuel to keep ourselves warm - or increasingly cool - to travel or to make and build things etc. This is not at all like the tobacco companies where their product was addictive and exceptionally hard to stop using because it altered brain chemistry. The reason we don't stop using fossil fuels is because it would massively decrease our standard of living and we are not willing to do that to ourselves with good reason. Although we are working to find ways to maintain living standards without fossil fuel we are not there yet so, if we want to see who, if anyone, is responsible all we need to do is look in a mirror....but hey why take responsibility for our own choices when we can blame a rich company instead and see if we can get them to pay?
That will be a hard sell to the zealots who use a computer or smartphone to post how responsible they are, who take public transportation that gulps diesel fuel. and contributes to th problem just like the rest of us.
I challenge them to immediately stop using any form of non-human energy, to refuse to eat food they grow or kill themselves, to walk everywhere, to determine what in their lives uses any energy, eliminate it, then come back and preach to us about how they are't part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves. It was their own research back in the 30s 40s and 50s that got the ball rolling on our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.
The only way the industry can survive is by continuing to externalize their costs onto all of us.
Their costs onto all of us? Remind me again who burns hydrocarbons. Is it the oil industry or the industries customers?
Are customers in some way ignorant or confused as to the well known global impacts of burning hydrocarbons?
I know it is easy and satisfying to blame everyone else especially large corporations for the worlds problems but WTF people who think this makes any sense whatsoever need to look in the mirror.
These lawsuits are illogical and insane. If you accept the underlying premise then what is the limiting principal? Why can't anyone and everyone be sued for their willful contributions to climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies are just middle men. If they want to sue those responsible for burning hydrocarbons, they have to sue the general public. Good luck with that.
National City Lines anyone? (Score:2)
Remind me again who burns hydrocarbons. Is it the oil industry or the industries customers?
Think back to 1940, just before the United States got dragged into World War II. Chevron and Phillips Petroleum were among the investors in an joint venture to put the electric streetcars of California out of business [wikipedia.org] in favor of fossil-powered buses. Others included Firestone Tire and Mack Trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Their costs onto all of us? Remind me again who burns hydrocarbons. Is it the oil industry or the industries customers?
Customers who need energy to do their own business are not also in the business of offering energy; therefore, they use what the energy companies provide. The energy companies provide coal and gas powered energy. Their customers do not get to choose. Telling the energy customers that they are wrong is to essentially tear down all of modern society. Telling the energy providers that they need to provide cleaner energy is the only recourse any non-energy company has. They do this through lawsuits with which t
Re: (Score:2)
The science around climate change, because it involves complex systems, is so convoluted, that it's going to keep many expert witnesses well paid for a long time to come, if in any way the law has to establish whether it is "true" or not. It's one of the reasons the anti-climate change voices will never go away -- ultimately it is too complex and people simply take a view on what they think is the more likely truth.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll get shot down at the supreme Court and everyone involved knows that.
It'll get shot down long before it gets there. Oil companies aren't the ones setting oil on fire causing emissions. That would be you and me. That would be the power company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Garbage.
70-90 year old "science" is valid?!?!
70 years ago smoking was promoted as being healthy, plastics were a wonder product with no hazards, seat belts weren't required in cars, electronic circuits wouldn't get much smaller, there were only a handful of computers, satellites didn't exist.
" anthropogenic climate change" is a theory, not a fact. It's also very, very, very shaky because it's based on cherry-piking data. It's quite easy to "disprove" a theory which is based on accurate data from an incredib
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're all younger judges that were appointed by Reagan. And the guys appointed by Trump are often in their 30s because they were appointed for loyalty not competency and the Democrats don't have the balls to hold up judicial appointments.
although for the most part except for the actual supreme Court the lower courts have been surprisingly sane in re
Re: Domestic mining. (Re:Publicity) (Score:2)
They would also stop selling petroleum if it became illegal to do so. Which it should be, for all use cases where reasonable alternatives exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Paper straws are not a reasonable alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
or we can maybe just kill the oil companies.
but sure if you rather.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First start with uncessary luxuries. Why not ban most aviation? The 777 engine, the GE90-115B makes over a 100k horsepower. How much fuel does that thing suck? Surf to Radarbox or adsbexchange and see how incredibly congested the air is. If people's vacation and business travel are killing people, maybe its something we can do without? How come Delta, Boeing... Ford... aren't named as defendents? Don't the airlines fly nearly empty planes sometimes just so they don't lose the route to another airline?
But lets take a step back. Fuel doesn't do anything without a motor to burn it and a consumer to demand some service. Why not sue all the people who drive cars? They're just as much to blame. They can point the finger at the judge and jury and tell them how horrible they are for killing that poor old Seattle woman. Ask the jury to find themselves liable.
We're all to blame. Every single one of us who have used automobiles or public transportation, or any energy derived form fossil fuels or energy from non-fossil fuel generation that used fossil fuels in it's construction or maintenance of the power generation system.
It's a reductio ad absurdum argument for sure, but not one of us is innocent of using fossil fuels.
The only way we can avoid the use of fossil fuels - we'd have to eschew all technology and return to hunter gatherer days.
For myself, I lo
Re: (Score:2)
These companies selling petroleum would stop selling petroleum if people stopped buying. If you bought petroleum then you share in the blame.
Ok bet. I barely drive. Maybe we need regulations forcing you to do the same or maybe we can maybe just once hold someone responsible instead of letting them cuck us into thinking its our fault.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies selling petroleum would stop selling petroleum if people stopped buying. If you bought petroleum then you share in the blame.
Ok bet. I barely drive. Maybe we need regulations forcing you to do the same or maybe we can maybe just once hold someone responsible instead of letting them cuck us into thinking its our fault.
So you do contribute to AGW - ever take a bus? Ever buy anything made of plastic? Is your power use 100 percent from renewables? Your clothing - all picked spun and sewn using only human power on machines that used no fossil fuel energy from start to finish? That computer or phone you typed out your response - no fossil Fues used in its production?
We are all part of the problem. Every single one of us. I am, and so are you. The differences is that Understand and accept, but you deny.
But we do like our
Re: (Score:2)
Nah man i get my carbon footprint. Even when i was probably living cleaner than most people could tolerate i was still at like 4 earths or something.
The problem is that there are no consumer alternatives by design and a multiparty propaganda network that keeps people thinking theres no problem. Those people are at fault. At this point i don't blame the average idiot for anything because they're barely sapient.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies selling petroleum would stop selling petroleum if people stopped buying. If you bought petroleum then you share in the blame.
A single person doesn't have the power to choose not to buy petroleum products. A single person doesn't have the power to make a city build sustainable transport, or even to prevent that city from tearing up their existing infrastructure, as happened to light rail across the western world over the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
A single person doesn't have the power to choose not to buy petroleum products.
Really?
Millions of car-less New Yorkers would disagree.
You can choose to live near your job, grocery store. You can choose to avoid fossil-fueled public transport and stick to electrified rail and subway lines, etc.
It is absolutely possible for an individual to "choose not to buy petroleum products".
Simply not having a car does not make a person carbon free. Now if they lived in a mud hut, walked everywhere they went, ate only raw food, made their own clothing - they'd be pretty darn close. Are you doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
These companies selling petroleum would stop selling petroleum if people stopped buying. If you bought petroleum then you share in the blame.
But making fuel for vehicles isn't the only thing that crude oil they drill and refine gets used for though is it? Many of the components in products in your home, things like the plastics your food comes wrapped in and even the device you posted your comment from also are made using oil.
Re: (Score:2)
But making fuel for vehicles isn't the only thing that crude oil they drill and refine gets used for though is it? Many of the components in products in your home, things like the plastics your food comes wrapped in and even the device you posted your comment from also are made using oil.
As a comedian once said, Almost everything I buy at the grocery store is wrapped or contained in plastic. The meat, the veggies, the laundry soap, just about all of it.
But you're being green by not allowing me to have plastic bags to carry things in, so you chop down a few trees to make brown paper bags.
Re: (Score:2)
This case will enjoy great success until... (Score:1, Troll)
This case will enjoy great success until someone establishes that the temperature in the region exceeded 108 degrees before fossil fuels were a thing.
You don't think the folks at the major oil companies won't be able to establish that fact in court when their existence is on the line?
Re:This case will enjoy great success until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the other side can display all the science showing that the specific event in question was casused by the emission of way too much global greenhouse gas emissions.
Then remember that civil trial evidence standards are not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of the evidence", IE "more likely than not". With a criminal trial the defense can win by injecting enough slivers of doubt to reach "reasonable doubt" to get a not guilty verdict. With a civil trial, they have to go much further and reach "probably not us", which is much more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very naive understanding of how things operate in courts of law.
What a horrible idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of lawsuit proceeding is a horrible idea. Some people say this is similar to suing tobacco companies. But it's just not. What is the goal here? In other words what do they want from the oil companies? To cease all production and consign us all to a pre-industrial way of living? Turn off all the lights, shut down all the cars? But most likely they just want lots of money. Which won't solve any problems with climate change, but it will make a bunch of people miserable. And it's passing the buck to blame it on the oil companies when we're the ones demanding oil and gas. We share a collective responsibility.
Meanwhile I'm in favor of promoting renewable energy and other forms of carbon-neutral energy. Electric cars are pretty neat for those that can afford them and have a place to charge them. Suing oil companies won't help with this transition.
Re:What a horrible idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the moment, some very large costs are externalized for the fossil fuel companies. And it's the concept that the fossil fuel companies are getting a free ride, profiting without bearing any costs of the impacts, that is the common element with the tobacco companies.
Although not the specific goal of this lawsuit, I could easily see that an end goal is to build a carbon price into the economy to make sure that the costs of the impacts are appropriately assigned.
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon price built into the economy, perhaps that means, eventually, resource rationing for every human being. Most of what we do causes pollution or just using something up, even if just fresh water. This is the look in the mirror moment.
We kinda use money but it's so abstract now that it has no connection to the natural environment. And yes what's sand until someone invents a process to coverts it to something useful. But many processes deplete.
Some regenerate, like soil regeneration. So maybe the conce
Re:What a horrible idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
"To cease all production and consign us all to a pre-industrial way of living? "
This is weapons level stupid and or disingenuous. Do you actually think a) that's the point of the suit b) the person who filed it wants that?
It's mostly a bad idea because it will not succeed, and in the current judicial climate (no pun intended) of the USA may very well set some kind of precent at complete odds with the goal of the lawsuit.
And I say this as somebody who thinks the people behind such a lawsuit are not in it for money or notoriety or whatever. People can be driven by emotion for certain things that are right - you know, like if your mom died on a night that was substantially warmer than you remember experiencing when you were a kid. Suing oil companies could *very well* help with "the transition" as you call it, if only to decimate their ability to lobby for policy - people really don't understand how subsidized their industry is.
None the less, what appears to really sell right now in the US is antagonization so here we are. It's somehow "our fault" witch to me smacks of somebody who really isn't particularly interested in the larger scale details.
Re: (Score:3)
This is weapons level stupid and or disingenuous. Do you actually think a) that's the point of the suit b) the person who filed it wants that?
No but it's the only logical conclusion from such a suit as if it goes ahead the companies would cease existing given the insane liabilities that it would open them up to. But you're right, something is weapons level stupid here. What's the bet the lawyers and plaintiff drives to the court? Oil companies didn't create the emissions, people did. We're the one setting their product on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oil companies didn't create the emissions, people did. We're the one setting their product on fire."
Speaking of weapons level stupid ...
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of weapons level stupid ...
Thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive counterpoint. I think you've just described your own contribution to this discussion. Now if you'll excuse me it's 4pm and time to drive home. We can pick this up when I've finished adding another 11kg of CO2 to the atmosphere and reach my destination.
Re: What a horrible idea. (Score:2)
They don't just want lots of money. They also want funding for education programs about climate change.
And I'm not passing judgment on the merits, here, just RTFS.
Wrong on all counts. (Score:4, Informative)
Some people say this is similar to suing tobacco companies. But it's just not.
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
What is the goal here?
To hold people accountable for their actions.
In other words what do they want from the oil companies? ... most likely they just want lots of money. Which won't solve any problems with climate change.
That's not true at all! If oil companies have to start paying a ton of money then the price of oil goes up. This cascades into the general population (businesses included) seeking out and transitioning to non-fossil fuel solutions.
Meanwhile I'm in favor of promoting renewable energy and other forms of carbon-neutral energy.
Isn't that exactly what higher oil prices will do?
Electric cars are pretty neat for those that can afford them and have a place to charge them. Suing oil companies won't help with this transition.
Why would you think that? Faced with prospect of higher oil prices, people will want a solution, the kind of things only a government can do. A greater investment by the government in battery development and EV infrastructure will absolutely help that transition.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
This is an absurd overgeneralization.
To hold people accountable for their actions.
Look in the mirror.
That's not true at all! If oil companies have to start paying a ton of money then the price of oil goes up. This cascades into the general population (businesses included) seeking out and transitioning to non-fossil fuel solutions.
I do not support artificially raising the cost of hydrocarbons just to enrich lawyers and randos. If people think it is a good idea to artificially raise the price of hydrocarbons to bias market activity for the sake of climate change the proceeds should at least be invested into actually fighting climate change.
The real issue here is people who support this nonsense know they don't have consensus for price hikes and so they are trying to short circui
Re: (Score:2)
Except the billionaires who made a point of ignoring real costs and bribed other rich people to also ignore them too, it seems.
But enriching politicians and PR firms so that external costs of oil pollution are ignored for 40 more years, is acceptable, it seems.
1. Exactly, what valuable policies won't happen because of lawsuits and price-hikes?
2. "short circuit consensus building and policy process" by bribing politicians and buying propaganda, is acceptable, it seems.
Ends don't justify the means.
You claim to know better: Please te
Re: (Score:2)
But enriching politicians and PR firms so that external costs of oil pollution are ignored for 40 more years, is acceptable, it seems.
To the extent this is even legal I don't see it as acceptable and don't support it. I also disagree with the premise enrichment of politicians and PR firms has lead to ignoring costs of burning hydrocarbons. This simply isn't the case.
1. Exactly, what valuable policies won't happen because of lawsuits and price-hikes?
The issue is not about policies themselves but the policy process itself and who gets to decide what the policy ought to be.
If you play legal games rather than building consensus and working policy process then you deny citizens the right to weigh risks and benefits and make
Re: (Score:2)
You claim to know better
Did I? What lead you to this conclusion?
Please tell us, how to stop this world-wide pissing-contest for burning more oil and coal.
Make viable cheaper alternatives readily available to the market.
Please tell us how to punish billionaires who abandoned their self-proclaimed role as leaders, who used their positions as leader to endanger the health and lives of their customers.
If billionaires commit crimes they should be prosecuted. If they simply do things you don't like or agree with .... well then.... you are welcomed to cry about it.
The real issue here is not about leadership or falling short of being an upstanding citizen. It is really the fact oil companies exist at all. This is clearly the intent of the statement " If oil companies have to start paying a ton of mo
Re: (Score:2)
This is an absurd overgeneralization.
If your product intrinsically kills people then it kills people. You may not like that inconvenient truth but that doesn't make it less true.
Look in the mirror.
I have and if just a few percent of people lived they way I did then we would be a lot closer to a solution than we are now. I'm certain that your intention is to imply that any action I take short of living in a cave isn't enough because you are not being serious about the issue.
The real issue here is people who support this nonsense know they don't have consensus for price hikes
There is no consensus for anything in this world, country, state, county, city, or town. C
Re: (Score:2)
If your product intrinsically kills people then it kills people. You may not like that inconvenient truth but that doesn't make it less true.
The reason this is an absurd overgeneralization is a huge number of products kill people. Knives, ladders, cars, ovens, electrical sockets, baseball bats, wood chippers, hammers, log splitters, screwdrivers, surge suppressors, power supplies, toasters, lighters, chainsaws.etc. Such products are ubiquitous. Without articulating a useful limiting principal you are not communicating anything useful.
"As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me." obviously con
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this is an absurd overgeneralization is a huge number of products kill people. Knives, ladders, cars, ovens, electrical sockets, baseball bats, wood chippers, hammers, log splitters, screwdrivers, surge suppressors, power supplies, toasters, lighters, chainsaws.etc.
This is a false equivalence because none of what you listed are intrinsically harmful. They can all be used safely without hurting anyone. The same is not true for fossil fuels.
What I intended by saying look in the mirror is the accountability is ours. We should all face the climate death lawsuit. If you burn less hydrocarbons or cause less hydrocarbons to be burnt then it stands to reason the amount you would be compelled to pay for your transgressions would be lower than someone who is less careful.
I'm 100% in favor of a carbon tax!
What I intended was to convey political support for policymaking. A consensus view where a majority of policy makers are able to agree on a course of action.
If it weren't for gerrymandering and other efforts to minimize representation then I'd be on board with that. The consensus of the public is in favor taking action but the will of the people is not being represented.
Not only do I not support it...
Your opinion on the matter is not relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
Not quite. The results are indirect. They aren't generating the emissions, the people dying are. And in many cases the death is the result of others. When I smoke a cigarette there is a direct link between the company who produced it and my health outcome. However when an oil company produces a product and Billy Bob rolls coal down the highway causing emissions as he overtakes me in my EV, the health outcome is not as clearly linked and is indirect.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
Not quite. The results are indirect.
Firstly, I was careful to avoid implying the result was direct. "[A]s a result of their product" can be something that impacts people indirectly.
Secondly, people do not die as a direct result of smoking, they die as a result of cancerous growths. There is a chain of biological events and cellular events that must occur before a carcinogen produces a cancerous growth. This chain is so predictable that people have associated it as a direct result. The primary difference is that people have not made the same a
Re:What a horrible idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're looking at this through the lens of a trade-off: whenever we make technological progress, we take risks. Your argument seems to be that as a society, we accepted the risks of climate change when we demanded cheap energy, and allowing individuals who are hurt to sue the oil companies would ultimately force them to close, and put us, figuratively speaking, back in the stone age.
You also doubt the motives of the folks making this lawsuit.
I wonder if you really believe that, and also whether you're the kind of person who can change their mind when presented with a different approach? Because - if you were the billionaire child of some an oil baron somewhere, I would understand why you are making this argument... barring that I'm not sure why you would want to do so.
For comparison sake - I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake, and even in a world where bad luck car accidents are statistically inevitable, I would be held accountable. Financially.
Suppose I said: "Accidental death is an inevitable risk of driving. Therefore, anyone who wants compensation for a lost loved one is just greedy, and I shouldn't be held accountable for killing the accidental pedestrian because that's just the risk society took when it decided to have cars." If I really believed that, would you conclude that I should be allowed to drive anything bigger than a tricycle?
We expect accountability from people who prepare food, build skyscrapers, and perform heart surgery. That's not about greed. That's necessary component of a functioning society. It also has not meant giving up on food, skyscrapers, or medicine. Instead, the people who engage in those activities have to take responsibility for the risks that come with their decisions.
So on the one hand - I get that there is a trade off between advancing our society and risking lives. But I'm less clear on why you would want those trade offs to be made without accountability by the people making them; and even more unclear on why, of all the people you could decide should be exempted from the normal rules of accountability, you'd settle on billionaires from the oil industry.
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison sake - I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake, and even in a world where bad luck car accidents are statistically inevitable, I would be held accountable. Financially.
Should the vehicle vendor also be held accountable financially for the accident? What about downstream suppliers of components and services that enabled the production of the vehicle?
I ask this question because the oil companies are mostly not the ones causing the carbon pollution. It is their customers intentionally and willfully polluting the atmosphere with CO2.
So on the one hand - I get that there is a trade off between advancing our society and risking lives. But I'm less clear on why you would want those trade offs to be made without accountability by the people making them; and even more unclear on why, of all the people you could decide should be exempted from the normal rules of accountability, you'd settle on billionaires from the oil industry.
The people harming the environment are mostly not "billionaires from the oil industry". It is everyone else burning hydrocarbons that are doin
Re: (Score:2)
Should the vehicle vendor also be held accountable financially for the accident? What about downstream suppliers of components and services that enabled the production of the vehicle?
. yeah fucking manufacturers are often held accountable are you like 10 years old?
Re: (Score:2)
. yeah fucking manufacturers are often held accountable
This is overgeneralizing. The context of the statement was " I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake"
Manufacturers are not "often held accountable" for bad luck mistakes on the part of the driver.
are you like 10 years old?
Are you like 5? Do you worship Adolf Hitler? Do you wish you could have blown Joseph Goebbels whistle?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we all take part in using the energy produced by oil companies. My observation already addressed that fact, and pointed out that, from the lens of accountability, there are any number of other risks and decisions that we collectively take, and yet we maintain standards of accountability. You haven't responded to the concept of accountability - you've just rehashed your original claim without handling it's underlying inconsistency at all.
This does answer the question I posed, specifically are you capab
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't responded to the concept of accountability - you've just rehashed your original claim without handling it's underlying inconsistency at all.
This is stupid, the oil companies are not the ones burning hydrocarbons the consumers are. The consumers are therefore accountable. If there were no consumers there would be no oil companies.
This does answer the question I posed, specifically are you capable of adjusting to, or at least acknowledging, different ways of looking at the underlying problem? The answer you have given is "no."
No, I'm not going to look at it from your perspective because your perspective is counterfactual nonsense. If you have a cogent credible argument then make it. Right now all I'm hearing from you are unbelievable excuses.
The difference is this - oil companies have spent decades (arguably generations, at this point) funding climate denial and political obstruction to the advance of alternatives. They haven't just been passively doing what people asked of them; they've devoted immense effort and resources undermining democracy and the possibilities of future technology at our expense.
Everyone knows where the CO2 goes after you burn hydrocarbons. This is taught in every gradescho
Re: (Score:2)
[T]he oil companies are not the ones burning hydrocarbons the consumers are. The consumers are therefore accountable. If there were no consumers there would be no oil companies.
Yes, you've been saying that. Your claim the entire time has been:
If you have a cogent credible argument then make it.
One more time for the lulz? Okay, here is a simplified variation of the original so you can try again:
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake, and even in a world where bad luck car accidents are statistically inevitable, I would be held accountable. Financially.
Everything you said except this quoted line is accurate and reasonable. I read in the news almost every day about how someone was accidentally run over and nothing being done about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause of death (Score:2, Flamebait)
From TFA:
On June 28, 2021, a heatwave saw temperatures rise to over 42 degrees Celsius (108 degrees Fahrenheit) in Seattle, the hottest ever recorded in the US coastal city. On that day, Juliana Leon was found unconscious in her car and died soon after from hyperthermia â" the overheating of the body.
In her car? Of course that'll kill her. Was she not capable of opening the door and stepping out?
Re: Cause of death (Score:2)
Kind of hard to open the door if you're already unconscious due to heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of hard to take a freeway exit and then park if you are too unconcious to open your car door.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
On June 28, 2021, a heatwave saw temperatures rise to over 42 degrees Celsius (108 degrees Fahrenheit) in Seattle, the hottest ever recorded in the US coastal city. On that day, Juliana Leon was found unconscious in her car and died soon after from hyperthermia â" the overheating of the body.
In her car? Of course that'll kill her. Was she not capable of opening the door and stepping out?
If she died while burning fossil fuels and the fossil fuels killed her isn't that like suicide?
I guess no one spotted the irony (Score:2)
"found unconscious in her car "
I guess it could have been an EV , but there weren't many around in 2021 so unless it was a Fred Flintstone style vehicle it was powered by oil. Why didn't she take the bus?
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't she take the bus?
Maybe there wasn't one? In my town there is one an hour in each direction that only goes in the direction of the major towns to the south or north, nothing going west and they only run between 6am and 8pm. If I need to go anywhere else than those places or I need to go at a time other than the scheduled time then public transport isn't an option. Welcome to living in a rural community.
Complete nonsense (Score:1)
WA courts (Score:2)
The suit is in WA state court. Likely scotus can't have a say. Like WA courts are sufficiently woke to let her win.
Next (Score:3)
Next such suit: Woman dies on way to hospital due to traffic jam. Sues car companies for making too many cars.
Burden of Proof (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine proving it scientifically, but having bribed politicians ignore the proof?
Re: Standing (Score:2)
I agree the case is very likely to get thrown out. I don't think it will be for standing, though. Someone died, and surviving family members should have standing. But I'm sure courts will find a way to toss it anyway.
Re: You - yes you - are the religious nutjob. (Score:2)
Galileo would be proud.
With that kind of logic, though, no scientific evidence could ever be admitted in court.
Re: Correlation is not causation (Score:3)
Why does it need to be direct ?