NYC Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change (theguardian.com) 434
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: New York City is seeking to lead the assault on both climate change and the Trump administration with a plan to divest $5 billion from fossil fuels and sue the world's most powerful oil companies over their contribution to dangerous global warming. City officials have set a goal of divesting New York's $189 billion pension funds from fossil fuel companies within five years in what they say would be "among the most significant divestment efforts in the world to date." Currently, New York City's five pension funds have about $5 billion in fossil fuel investments. New York state has already announced it is exploring how to divest from fossil fuels. New York's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, said that the city is taking the five fossil fuel firms -- BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell -- to federal court due to their contribution to climate change.
Court documents state that New York has suffered from flooding and erosion due to climate change and because of looming future threats it is seeking to "shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat." The court filing claims that just 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with the five targeted companies the largest contributors. The case will also point to evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public.
Court documents state that New York has suffered from flooding and erosion due to climate change and because of looming future threats it is seeking to "shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat." The court filing claims that just 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with the five targeted companies the largest contributors. The case will also point to evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public.
Political tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax dollars at work. Unless the armies of attorneys are doing the work for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Gotta start somewhere.
The decedents of John D Rockefeller have been applying pressure to ExxonMobil over their knowledge of climate change research from decades ago.
The tide will eventually turn against the fossil companies, and if any of them have been covering up their knowledge of climate change, you can bet they'll get taken to cleaners sooner or later.
The problem and its impacts are getting to the point where it cant be ignored.
Re: Political tax (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many ways to offset the pollution.
Why sue gas company instead of the car owner burning the gas?
Make no sense, this is just further bizarre social justice. The polluters suing the people who have them the means to pollute.
Re: Political tax (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many ways to offset the pollution.
Why sue gas company instead of the car owner burning the gas?
Make no sense, this is just further bizarre social justice. The polluters suing the people who have them the means to pollute.
Because the Car owner is a voter and doesn't have that much money, but a big bad Oil Company doesn't vote and presumably has a lot of cash.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Political tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Marxism said that capitalism was bound to collapse due to the 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall' and that a planned economy was the inevitable future.
Environmentalism says that capitalism is bound to collapse due to environmental damage and that a planned economy was the inevitable future.
It's no coincidence that at the end of the Cold War when Communism collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Marxist notion that capitalism was doomed lost credibility a lot of people who saw themselves as future economic planners decided to adopt environmentalism instead of marxism as a justification. In fact Marxism never really went away - rather than the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat it mutated to be {whites, men, straight people} oppressing {non whites, women, LBGT people}. Amusingly the people who believe this tend to be much more bourgeoise than the ones who don't.
As Brendan O'Neill put it AntiFa activism has become the bourgeoisie 'getting a bus into town and punching a working class Trump supporter in the face'
https://westernfreepress.com/2... [westernfreepress.com]
[Brendan O'Neill] - I don't understand what's wrong with having principles especially on freedom of speech. You should have principles on freedom of speech and also there isn't this neat divide between principles and practical everyday life, they inform each other and that's the example I gave, of in Britain, where we have public order legislation that can ban a march and that came in as a consequence of the refusal of the left to defend free speech and freedom of association for Nazis. These have consequences. If you give up your principles, it has devastating consequences in everyday life. I think I disagree, but I think this is entirely about freedom of speech. I think that is the issue in relation to all of this stuff. I think freedom of speech is the foundational freedom, it's the freedom that makes everything else possible, it's the freedom, the right to vote, the right to association, the right to political organization, none of those make any sense or are even workable without freedom of speech, without the right to say what you want to publish, what you want to distribute, so the fact that there is a new left or students or society in general that is increasingly uncomfortable with freedom of speech should concern us enormously and you know in relation to antifa, antifa poses as this kind of radical lefty, kind of you know like the International Brigades that went off to fight the fascists in Spain, do me a favor, the antifa is a bourgeois, censorious, shrill anti-democratic, anti-working class. For George Orwell, anti-fascism meant going to Spain and risking your life to kill actual fascist. For antifa, it means getting a bus into town and punching a working class Trump supporter in the face, that's not the same thing.
I.e. the new form of Marxism has invented the class alignment of the original one. Now the idle rich are the good guys and the working classes are sexistracisthomophobes. Who - horror of horrors - emit CO2 because they have actual jobs.
Re: Political tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen.
This is like suing the farmer for providing you food.
If not for Oil and the derived products, these fuckers would still be shoveling horse shit and burning candles for light and wood for fuel.
What the Oil companies should do is simply boycott NYC. Stop all deliveries of fuel oil, natural gas and gasoline.
Re: Political tax (Score:4, Informative)
Car Drivers contribute to the harm, but will also pay for that harm, as economies collapse and bill for for mitigating further climate change and the bill for adapting the inevitable change all become due. So we will pay anyway. But will Oil Companies pay their share? And what constitutes that share?
Let's be clear: organisations and entities that actively seek or have sought to delay action on climate change have cost the rest of us dearly. In the case of oil companies, they knew the effects and cost of climate change form the beginning, but sought to mislead by creating the denialist movement, and sponsoring the likes of Judith Currie and Anthony Watts to be their mouthpiece. These originating entities, their mouthpieces (who at this point, are being deliberately misleading), and anyone else who profits from lying about climate should certainly be considered more culpable than someone who drives around minding their own business.
Re: Political tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's quite clear at this point that the oil companies have been doing their utmost to obfuscate the discussion on climate change and spread outright misinformation.
Ask yourself this: why is the US the only developed country in which climate change is still a matter of 'debate'? Why is it that a matter of natural science that the experts of the relevant fields are in agreement about is being presented as an issue up for debate? Who benefits from there existing doubt over this? Who stands to lose if more strict actions are taken to control greenhouse gas emissions? The fossil fuel companies. The firms have a direct monetary incentive for there to be little or no environmental regulation. They also have vast wealth and hence vast lobbying power which they have used and are using to promote views and politicians that are entirely contrary to well understood science.
Tobacco companies a few decades past were doing the exact same deal and promoting false science to try and obfuscate the link between smoking and cancer, even though from internal documents it's quite clear that they were aware of the issue, and were actively promoting a view they knew to be false for their own economic benefit. This is no different. In fact a lot of the marketing companies that were in charge of the diversion tactics of the tobacco companies have since transitioned into the fossil fuel business. It's quite easy to do: you set up different 'think thanks' with environmentally friendly names, and you hire some scientists, often not even from relevant fields who're willing to shill for you. Then you produce non-peer reviewed pseudo-science papers on the matter. Then you drag these shills on tv and elsewhere into the media to advertise how there really is no problem and all the academics are just wrong. Once you've established enough doubt among the general public about the matter (I mean after all there was a 'scientist' on tv saying he doesn't think it's happening, so clearly it can't be settled right?) you spend some hundred or so million a year lobbying politicians to oppose any regulation on your industry. The fact that this strategy still works as well as it did in the past shows how easy it is to fool the majority of people who do not understand how science works.
If I manufacture a product the use of which does harm not just to me, but the entire ecosystem of the planet and all civilizations, and I then knowingly and willingly try to misrepresent or hide the damage it's doing to further my own profit, that's deceitful and damaging to everyone. and it's definitely something that one should get sued over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/pla... [petroleum.co.uk]
"roughly 5% of total petroleum used goes to the production of plastics"
cars aren't the only way you use petroleum (or gas as you guys call it) so your point isn't really true
Re: (Score:2)
So when will you people start allowing us to generate more non-fossil electricity?
No one is stopping you from generating more non-fossil electricity. We just don't want you impeding our use of fossil fuels.
Re: Political tax (Score:4)
Oil stopped NYC from literally drowning in horse shit
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.... [s8int.com]
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse****?
Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport.
Now, apart from Bill de Blasio virtue signalling antics, NYC generates very little horsehit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You start off with stupidity, so I didn't bother reading the rest of your diatribe.
has just been dumping it's nuclear waste in the environment where it's been seeping into water supplies and the food chain and causing massive damage.
That's illegal. Providing gasoline for sale is not. The difference should be obvious, even to NYS politicians, but I guess stupidity has no limits.
Re: Political tax (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be a bit unfair if the "nuclear waste" that's been released to the environment for years is the same substance emitted by every living animal on the planet. CO2 is not pollution at any level we emit today. No one considers the CO2 itself to be toxic at any atmospheric concentrations. It's the "global climate catastrophe" which is where they are claiming damages which is going to be hard to prove a causal link and even harder to establish a monetary value of damages.
This lawsuit is politics, pure and simple.
Re: Political tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Soo... what do you expect then? An immediate halt to the world's oil supply? That would be the overnight death of NYC. And if we never had it to begin with, we'd all be shitting in outhouses right now while the rest of the world modernized, while New York is stuffed with 5 tons of horse shit per 10 square feet.
That's just a lawsuit that will never be won. Nonetheless, how much will their legal team cost?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no law against hastening or causing climate change.
Re:Political tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, we should only spend money to stop poor criminals, because it is too expensive it to go after the rich ones.
If you want to complain about someone being innocent, do so.
Right now, all you are doing is telling the world how easy it is to bribe you.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the oil companies are rich because people want to continue buying their oil to drive their cars and heat their houses. They use that money to buy political influence, suppress research and do other evil things to continue supplying that demand. That doesn't morally excuse their evil deeds or mean we can't go after them, but it's the continued demand for their product that enables them to fight back so hard and effectively.
In other words, the morality of what they do and the conditions that enabl
Re: Political tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, they're rich because they got cheap access to public resources and haven't had to pay for any of the externalities.
Re: Political tax (Score:5, Interesting)
You know oil companies pay 30-40% royalties on oil leases, on top of corporate taxes. 3 of the top 10 [google.com] taxpayers are oil firms.
Even if they underpaid royalties (I doubt it), that doesn't help them without a robust demand for their product.
Re:Political tax (Score:5, Interesting)
For most wealthy companies, you would be right. But we aren't talking about most wealthy companies, we are talking about the descendants of J.D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
As such, they are not rich because people want to use their product. They are rich because J.D. Rockefeller committed more crimes than pretty much any other 1% ever.
He made secret deals with railroads to prevent them from shipping other companies oil. He spied on his competitors, passing out bribes left and right. When congress tried to break up his illegal monopoly, he hid from the subpoena for YEARS. They illegally bought up cheap public light rail and shut them down, replacing it with more expensive, oil burning buses.
Any other company, I would say, yes, being rich does not mean you are guilty. Most wealthy people are not evil. But the oil companies have a history just as bad, if not worse, than big tobacco.
Re: (Score:2)
In no way do I think Rockefeller or anyone else are "not guilty". I just think the most productive and promising way to fight them is to come up with better alternatives so as to reduce the demand for their products. In the long run, those crimes they commit don't do them any good if it doesn't get them access to a product that people want.
We aren't going to make a better future by dragging them down, we are going to make a better future by making them obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
They very issue is they have such undue influence that we have better alternatives, but they're difficult to implement under the policy influence these companies have. And really its disingenuous to suggest we can't do both at the same time. "Hey, NYC politicians and lawers, go work on energy saving technology and federal policy, nobody else is doing it!" (I guess that last one is kinda true at the federal level at the moment, see my first point.)
Re: (Score:2)
please....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the armies of attorneys are doing the work for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
The attorneys hired by de Blasio gave him campaign contributions . . . out of the goodness of their hearts.
Now de Blasio is kicking some of that back . . . out of the goodness of his heart.
The whole thing is political posing, just like the folks in Congress with their Net Neutrality impotent proposals.
"Let's have a vote to call the repeal of Net Neutrality, dirty, dirty, dirty, nasty, nasty, nasty!"
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You're already paying carbon taxes. You're just not aware that they're included in the total price to buy or sell goods and services to many states (with carbon taxes), countries (with carbon taxes), and provinces (with carbon taxes).
Most trade agreements allow you to deduct the carbon taxes assessed locally first from the total carbon taxes assessed in the country you buy/sell to, so in practice, you reduce the carbon taxes you pay the foreign government, other state, or other province and the
Andrew Cuomo (Score:2)
This is publicity whoring for Cuomo. He'll be announcing his candidacy for President in a few weeks. Expect plenty more of the same over the next couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax dollars at work. Unless the armies of attorneys are doing the work for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
New York State has no business commenting on carbon emissions until it opens Shoreham.
Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should hold those burning fossil fuels responsible for doing so. The largest city in the world's worst polluting nation would be a good start. I propose that we sue New York City for their contributions to climate change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's kind of what I was thinking. These idiots are suing the oil companies and yet they are some of the biggest contributors to pollution while they happily use oil to power all of their shit.
Absolutely fucking ridiculous. They can't blame someone for wrongdoing while they themselves benefited from the use of their products without a care in the world until now.
Re: (Score:2)
So VW owners cannot sue VW for the emissions scandal?
Re: Alternative (Score:2)
Of course. Because we all know New York City would be "greener" & healthier if every apartment burned wood for winter heat, and Manhattan had millions of horses burying its streets under ankle-deep poop daily...
http://www.historic-uk.com/His... [historic-uk.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be a hypocrite without hypocriting.
Wow, who knew Donald Trump posted to /.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats you and I buddy, and its not like we have much of an alternative to driving gasoline powered cars, using electricity generated from coal, having stuff shipped via air freight, and heating homes with low grade diesel aka "heating oil" or natural gas.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you do.You just don't like it.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should hold those burning fossil fuels responsible for doing so. The largest city in the world's worst polluting nation would be a good start. I propose that we sue New York City for their contributions to climate change.
I say we ban the import of Fossil fuels into the city and disconnect them from the carbon powered Electrical grid... Let them make due with bio-fuel, solar panels and windmills.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
And then, because overfishing is bad, NYC should ban fish sales and consumption, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And then, because overfishing is bad, NYC should ban fish sales and consumption, right?
I think that you forget that some fish comes from fish farms...
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, let them import fish from fish farms (that don't use plastics or other oil based products, including fuel for boats).
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point.
We all live in the real world, today, and have to operate within those parameters. NYC is trying to do that, and the addition of shifting pension fund money around shows that they realize they are contributing to the problem and are taking steps to change that.
The energy companies, on the other hand, knew about climate change and the role of fossil fuels half a century ago, and what did they do about it? Try to bury the problem.
Same as the tobacco industry did.
Only fair if they face the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Alternative (Score:5, Informative)
Russ R.
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”
Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”
So, if I’m going to nitpick details 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.
But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.
Also... https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Grab some popcorn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Governors using the courts and statutes for the extortion of for-profit corporations via lawsuit and fines... it does resemble a revenue stream used by some European nations, though they seem to specialize in taxing non-domestic companies.
I'm without a dog in the fight, and reluctant to pick one, but; at the very least, this smacks of grandstanding, and at its worst interpretation, it is a shameless money g
Re: (Score:2)
I'm without a dog in the fight, and reluctant to pick one, but; at the very least, this smacks of grandstanding, and at its worst interpretation, it is a shameless money grab by a taxing entity run amok.
Yeah, I think the fact that it was filed by a huge class action law firm tells the story pretty clearly. They've probably taken it on contingency and are looking for a huge payday. Which will of course fix everything they claim to be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm without a dog in the fight, and reluctant to pick one, but; at the very least, this smacks of grandstanding, and at its worst interpretation, it is a shameless money grab by a taxing entity run amok.
Yeah, I think the fact that it was filed by a huge class action law firm tells the story pretty clearly. They've probably taken it on contingency and are looking for a huge payday. Which will of course fix everything they claim to be wrong.
Ah yes... the theoretical right of the least important and influential to redress the wrongs of society in court in David vs. Goliath fashion.
If only we lived in a society where the lawsuits were driven by a desire to fix the wrongs, rather than simply profit from them. But then, we'd need to fill the Congress with farmers, convenience store clerks, and IT workers instead of lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Grab some popcorn (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure we actually KNOW that the current warming trend is entirely man made
We know [www.ipcc.ch] to a high level of scientific certainty. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests the world would still be slowly cooling [www.ipcc.ch], if it wasn't for our greenhouse gas emissions.
Given that the science behind this specific part of the question is far from conclusive
It absolutely is; that's why every scientific institution on the planet endorses the conclusion that we're causing the warming we're seeing. We can even quantify it - the IPCC AR5 WG1 summary says our emissions of CO2 alone have caused a radiative forcing of 1.68 W m^2 (+/- 0.3), plus another 0.97 W m^2 from methane - which dwarfs the cooling effects of atmospheric dust and nitrates at about -0.42 W m^2 in total. We know it's our CO2 that's causing it because a) we can easily measure the CO2 levels rising rapidly, and b) isotopic analysis shows a match with carbon from fossil fuels (not to mention the observed levels happen to agree nicely with our calculated emissions, and that nothing else has been observed that could come close to causing the effect we're seeing).
None of this attribution has anything to do with our land temperature models (which btw are working just fine [arstechnica.com]).
What's still uncertain is exactly how much warming we'll see, and when. Not what's causing it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure we actually KNOW that the current warming trend is entirely man made,
Yes we do know that.
If you don't know, it's because of exactly the PR efforts of oil companies and others with a vested interest to confuse people, create FUD and dillute one of the strongest scientific arguments ever made in the history of the world.
The case for man-made climate change is so rock solid, we have more scientific evidence of it than we have about gravity or water being wet. No question has been studied for so long by so many. This is in part because of all that propaganda against the facts, a
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously?
They obviously don't teach the scientific method in school anymore... Ever hear this one? "Correlation does not prove causation"
Before you dig out your CO2 concentration and temperature charts and try to show how similar they are if you arrange the plot scales and offset the dates just so.... Remember that.
Remember, I'm NOT claiming the climate isn't changing... It most certainly is. I'm just not sure we can know just how much man's activity is responsible, and we obviously are not able to a
Didn't Shakespeare Write About This? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get thee to a nunnery.
Oil Tax (Score:3)
This is what you do when what you really want is an "oil tax" but know your already heavily-taxed citizens wouldn't stand for it. NYC would have a leg to stand on if, before filing a lawsuit, they banned all internal combustion cars in the city as well as turning off all petrochemical heating in the and all electricity from petrochemical sources. Until then, this is just a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, this is basically a joke, until NYC banns the import f all fossil fuels and energy sources which are derived from fossil fuels including electricity.
Have fun pushing the subway train in the dark and staying warm though the winter.
Re: Oil Tax (Score:2)
They actually can't do that. The federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea I know.. I was telling the CITY to do this, they are the ones who filed suit. Until they do, I don't figure they are actually serious about the damage fossil fuels they are claiming and are just looking for a payday.
Surely they can regulate the importation and sale of fossil fuels within their borders and sever any electrical connections on their own. Show us they are serious about this and I'll give them credit for being consistent... Stupid, but consistent.
Re: Oil Tax (Score:2)
Surely they can regulate the importation ... and sever any electrical connections
No and no. What part of "States don't have the power to regulate interstate commerce" for you not understand?
You could regulate the sale - for example, taxing it. But Jersey is a few miles away. People only have to drive across the state line to fill up. Yeah, that will get frustrating real quick, but consumers don't have a more viable alternative just yet.
Interesting idea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
York City's five pension funds have about $5 billion in fossil fuel investments.
So if NYC wins, do they also have to take responsibility for being a a co-conspirator? They did help the oil companies by financing what they were doing with $5 billion in just the pension funds alone. What other investments do/did they have with oil and coal I wonder? How much fossil fuel was, and still is used by NYC? Are they going to shut down all of the ports that oil burning ships dock at? What about all of the freight by diesel truck and trains? How about all of the stock brokers on Wall Street that deal with investments in oil and coal? They should go after them too.
I'm all for being responsible for the environment, but this is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly; should the utilities be able to claw back dividends paid to the pension funds?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
York City's five pension funds have about $5 billion in fossil fuel investments.
So if NYC wins, do they also have to take responsibility for being a a co-conspirator? They did help the oil companies by financing what they were doing with $5 billion in just the pension funds alone. What other investments do/did they have with oil and coal I wonder? How much fossil fuel was, and still is used by NYC? Are they going to shut down all of the ports that oil burning ships dock at? What about all of the freight by diesel truck and trains? How about all of the stock brokers on Wall Street that deal with investments in oil and coal? They should go after them too.
I'm all for being responsible for the environment, but this is just stupid.
I actually think it has a shot.
Not because the Oil Companies emitted fossil fuels in the past, or because they continue to emit them now, but because of the cover up.
I think the central claims would be:
1) Exxon Mobil, BP, etc all knew that global warming was real and that their product could incur major costs on coastal cities like NYC.
2) They conspired to cover up and mislead the public about #1.
If those two facts are true I think they do deserve to pay damages.
The only awkward bit is the fact that a class
Re: (Score:2)
And if they hadn't "covered it up" (going back to the 70's/80's, if I remember the claims correctly), what action would the cities have taken to mitigate the release of CO2?
If cities feel duped by oil companies that their product is destroying the environment and poses an existential threat, what would they have done differently had they known?
Ban cars, trucks, gasoline, oil, plastics and chemicals produced from crude oil?
IANAL and IANAJ, but I should think a logical requirement for the cities to prevail sh
Re: (Score:3)
And if they hadn't "covered it up" (going back to the 70's/80's, if I remember the claims correctly), what action would the cities have taken to mitigate the release of CO2?
Possibly nothing.
The point isn't that cities specifically would have done X if Oil Companies hadn't deceived them about climate change.
The point is the product produced by Oil Companies harms cities, and the Oil Companies covered up that harm.
IANAL and IANAJ, but I should think a logical requirement for the cities to prevail should be for the cities to demonstrate there is some reasonable action that they would have taken had this "fraud" not been committed.
IANAL either but the cities should only need to show that if not for the fraud then someone would have taken action to reduce the damages.
And that's a trivial bar to clear. Non-carbon energy sources were around for this entire period and would have received much more i
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, check NYC bond offerings. Have they disclosed the known risks of climate change when they need to borrow money? Or are they hiding these risks from investors and committing some financial fraud?
If the known risks of climate change were disclosed surely borrowing costs would be higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely this.
You can't fund something, profit from it, then sue the company you funded for doing their job in the legally mandated most fiscally responsible and (legally) profitable way of doing so for more profit.
This is all about politicians trying to make news. The sad thing is that many of the "oil companies" (energy companies) have been investing in clean energy now that it's viable without subsidies, this will probably cause funds to be diverted from that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fossil fuel energy was a necessary step for modern civilisation, few would argue against that. The issue is that once we knew more about the many negative factors that came with it, we should've quickly started the long process of transitioning to alternative sources with a lot less negatives - but the fossil fuel companies have deliberately and provably obscured that knowledge and impeded those efforts, to their own benefit and to the great detriment of society as a whole. They should be held accountable for all the damage and health costs that could have been avoided, in that time and in the future.
That's garbage talk there... The oil companies suppressed nothing, they produced energy at the lowest possible cost is all.
What happened is fossil fuels remained cheaper than the alternative so the ROI wasn't there to justify alternate sources of energy. The market chooses the cheapest viable alternative. That was fossil fuels. The oil companies just delivered us what we where willing to pay for.
So, in your parlance and using your logic, the problem was regulation that didn't make fossil fuels more expe
Re: (Score:2)
That's garbage talk there... The oil companies suppressed nothing, they produced energy at the lowest possible cost is all.
Bullshit. For example, Chevron bought up the battery patents from the Honda Insight and then refused to license them. Or how BP (and DuPont) have a biofuel arm which has been suing GE Energy Ventures' biofuel arm to prevent them from making and selling butanol.
Re: (Score:2)
That's garbage talk there... The oil companies suppressed nothing, they produced energy at the lowest possible cost is all.
What happened is fossil fuels remained cheaper than the alternative so the ROI wasn't there to justify alternate sources of energy. The market chooses the cheapest viable alternative. That was fossil fuels. The oil companies just delivered us what we where willing to pay for.
So, in your parlance and using your logic, the problem was regulation that didn't make fossil fuels more expensive... So government is the problem, if we use your logic.
Not that I agree, I think fossil fuels are a fine thing myself and has contributed mightily to the creation of wealth and increased standards of living world wide.
They're cheaper only if you don't count the externalized costs of the environment damage, costs that they deliberately hid.
There's two ways to deal with that.
The standard liberal approach is government regulation.
The standard libertarian approach is a lawsuit, which is exactly what NYC is doing.
Re:Interesting idea.. (Score:4, Informative)
The American Petroleum Institute, in particular its members Exxon and Chevron, have been funding denial and manufacturing doubt [ucsusa.org] ever since their own scientists told them of the risks of continued fossil fuel use back in the 80s (here is an empirical study [iop.org] describing their efforts to deny and deliberately misrepresent climate science findings, including from their own scientists).
And the reason fossil fuels appeared as cheap as they did was because the huge emission and pollution costs were being borne by the public, rather than the industry. If these externalised costs were factored in, the price of coal-fired electricity would triple [reuters.com] (study [nexteraenergycanada.com]) - and the RoI for investment in alternatives like renewables or nuclear would have been much larger. Likewise, the health and other external costs of oil exceeded $56 billion annually [nap.edu] back in 2005, adding at least 23 to 38 cents per gallon (again without including climate costs).
External costs are a market failure. Regulation is one option to correct that failure, but it's not the only possible option. Feel free to choose a solution that fits your political preferences, but ignoring or hand-waving away the problem won't make it go away. You'll still be paying for it, with excessive health premiums, illnesses and lost productivity, and tens of thousands of avoidable deaths [nytimes.com] every year.
Sue people who use oil (Score:2)
Correct response from oil company should be... (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, you guys did WHAT with that oil we sold you? Do you know how hard that crap is to get out of the ground and make nice and smooth?
Well I guess if you can't care for oil properly that means *no more oil for YOU*.
That didn't work for the tobacco companies (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess if you can't care for oil properly that means *no more oil for YOU*.
Oh if only the world were so lucky then we could switch over to wind/solar/nuclear in under a year.
Sue the Oil Companies out of existence and we will have to do that you know..
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess if you can't care for oil properly that means *no more oil for YOU*.
Oh if only the world were so lucky then we could switch over to wind/solar/nuclear in under a year.
Sue the Oil Companies out of existence and we will have to do that you know..
The survivors would anyway.
Reminds me of a reporter's conversation with a young lady during Occupy Wall Street.
Reporter: "But what about all the people that would die?"
Young lady: "Well, people die."
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess if you can't care for oil properly that means *no more oil for YOU*.
Oh if only the world were so lucky then we could switch over to wind/solar/nuclear in under a year.
Sue the Oil Companies out of existence and we will have to do that you know..
Do you realize that most oil is not actually used in electricity production?
Yay, it's popcorn time again! (Score:2)
Gather 'round kids, watch the shills from both sides duke it out for our entertainment!
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually pretty clever.
What Percentage of NYC Electricity Comes from Foss (Score:2)
Also, please make sure those windmills and solar panels were produced and delivered using clean-energy.
Don't get me wrong, I buy into clean energy, but come on...
then stop selling (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Good I hope they take the planet destroying a*holes to the cleaners. That industry has known since 1959 when that left wing loon Edward Teller told them that their product was likely to lead to climate change https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com] and by implication millions of deaths and the destruction of large parts of the planet. Their response - carry on selling the poison.
so, new york city stops getting oil (Score:2)
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
actually natural gas fired generators their biggest source for electrical power (nuclear # 2 by the way) ; but yeah the city was built and exists now because of fossil fuel.
hypocrites and idiots with no conception of how their world works.
sure, it's great to be going to non-polluting sources of energy but that's effort they have to make.
Re: so, new york city stops getting oil (Score:2)
Right, they have to actually make the effort. But it's far easier to file a lawsuit. Especially if one has lawyers on tap paid for by tax money
So if they win (Score:2)
Will these big companies be able to sue NYC for the profits it had over the years thanks to technological development driven by these companies or will the residents be able to sue for the taxes NYC collected all these years without tending to the well-known erosion and flooding issues that have targeted the city for the last 40 years.
The city allowed significant development below the sea level and its land has been well known to be sinking for centuries, you can find news reports back to the 1820's about t
Sue and Divest? (Score:2)
Other than all the other obvious social engineering comments about going after oil companies rather than people who burn the fuel, I'm also annoyed by the whole divestiture thing.
Who are the oil companies? The guys on the oil rigs? The executives? Or the stockholders? If New York has all these funds that are invested in petroleum companies, wouldn't it make them the owners?
Selling your stock before a big lawsuit ? If they are the owners of the companies they are suing, I'd love to see a court insist the
No basis for a case (Score:3)
This sounds like politics not law. I doubt they cannot be liable for environmental damages if they were following the environmental regulations. If anything, NYC is liable for not setting sufficient environmental laws to prevent the damage. There is definitely precedent for regulatory bodies to be sued if they knew their regulations were not sufficient. This sounds similar to how a boat captain cannot be sued for mishaps so long as the ship was up to standards and the captain didn't do anything negligent. Basically: If you followed the regulations, you are not liable. Even stranger is that, of course, since CO2 build-up in NYC can happen because of fossil fuels burnt in London, the entire case is completely out the window.
As for the whole divestment thing, that's done all the time and isn't even newsworthy. That's the other reason I suspect someone is just starting an early re-election campaign.
NYC: here's the solution (Score:2)
Fix their rails? (Score:2)
I feel there are questionable elements to the current research on man induced climate change (not to mention there are sooo many other forms of pollution that are way worse that we really need to stop. There's a toxic lake in China where byproduced are dumped from manufacturing all of our cheap crap).
However, I'm for this if they use the god damn money to fix their crumbling rail infrastructure. Penn Station needs to be completely renovated, and the subways are in desperate need of maintenance. But knowing
Much Easier (Score:2)
Just outlaw all gasoline and diesel sales in New York State. Problem solved. It would fix that, and them.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to explain why you used winos and distilleries instead of smokers and the tobacco industry? ;)
Re: Can alcoholics sue a distillery now? (Score:4, Informative)
Because that example would reveal that the lawsuits are successful [nolo.com]
It's probably just a left wing public attorney (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, if these sort of tactics are what it takes to get climate change addressed I say go for it. If you believe in science you believe in climate change. And unless you're really, really rich you're not going to be in any position to profit from ignoring it. You'll suffer with the rest of us as the price of food, drink,
Re: (Score:2)
Another DeBlasio fuck up. The city was a hell hole but that fucking Democrat really has done the worst job yet.
Not really about party, in this case. It's not like Bloomberg was really a Republican. However, the best pro-Bloomberg argument I ever heard was that yeah, he was a nanny-state limousine liberal, but at least he wasn't another one of the City Hall hacks that often find their way into the NYC mayor's office.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Subways you have to push, Intersections with Traffic cops instead of lights, horse and buggies back on broad way along with an army of street cleaners to keep the, um, horse droppings picked up. And did I mention the smell of all the people w/o AC in the summer or water to shower with year round if they live above the 5th floor?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be interesting:
On the advice of our lawyers, the continued sale of our products in the city of NY would not be in our best interest. Until the resolution of the case we have stopped selling any heating oil, gasoline or natural gas with the borders of the city of New York.
For some reason I'm reminded of this old joke:
http://www.medical-jokes.com/a... [medical-jokes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a duality of assholery, either way.