Author Topic: Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions (Read 90410 times)

AbruptSLR · « **on:** March 30, 2015, 11:08:14 PM »

The linked article & website (with free pdfs) discuss the Oslo principles legal approach to internalizing the externalities associated with climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/climate-change-paris-talks-oslo-principles-legal-obligations

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/news.html#oslo2015

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles.pdf

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles%20Commentary.pdf

Extract: "The Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations Launched by Expert Group Including GJP Director Thomas Pogge

It may seem that, in the absence of explicit treaties, states have no legal obligations to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, if emissions continue on their present trajectory, the harms they cause will reach catastrophic proportions, putting the human rights of billions of people in jeopardy. International human rights law is legally binding on states, which are, therefore, not free to continue business as usual. But how much do human rights and other sources of law, in particular tort law, require each state to do to reduce emissions, even in the absence of a specific treaty? A group of legal experts from around the world has answered this question, producing a set of Principles, setting out existing obligations regarding the climate, along with a detailed legal Commentary. These documents may help judges decide whether particular governments are in compliance with their legal obligations to address climate change. The principles may also serve many other purposes; for example, they may strengthen the bargaining position of poor countries by pointing to far-reaching obligations of wealthy countries."

The following quote cites the legal requirement for the application of the "Precautionary Principle":

"Precautionary Principle: There is clear and convincing evidence that the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions produced by human activity are causing significant changes to the climate and that these changes pose grave risks of irreversible harm to humanity, including present and future generations, to the environment, including other living species and the entire natural habitat, and to the global economy.

a. The Precautionary Principle requires that:
1) GHG emissions be reduced to the extent and at a pace necessary to protect against the threats of climate change that can still be avoided; and
2) the level of reductions of GHG emissions required to achieve this, should be based on any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number of eminent climate change experts.
b. The measures required by the Precautionary Principle should be adopted without regard to the cost, unless that cost is completely disproportionate to the reduction in emissions that will be brought about by expending it."

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:17:57 PM »

It would seem that as this legal theory applies to corporations as well as states, that it soon could become much more expensive for fossil fuel related companies to get liability insurance. Thus some of them may need to become self-insured or possibly go out of business. See the following extract:

Extract: "An enterprise whose activity includes fossil-fuel production must assess the impact that
any limitations imposed on future extraction or use of fossil fuels, consistent with the “carbon
budget” concept enunciated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others,
will have on its financial situation. The enterprise must disclose this information to investors,
securities regulators and the public."

viddaloo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:42:15 PM »

Off topic: Don't know if I should be charmed or disgusted with them calling it the 'Oslo Principles' — everything coming from Oslo's been fake, deadly or both for the past decades, in fact, it's hard to think of anything even in or about Oslo that isn't fake or harmful in some way.

Back to topic: I would believe in a legal approach 5 or 10 years ago, when I believed in civilisation in general as a somewhat benign phenomenon that could be used both for bad and for good. Go legal! I'd say, and about time, too! But now? Don't even get me started on the legal system.

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2015, 12:06:52 AM »

Quote from: viddaloo on March 30, 2015, 11:42:15 PM

Off topic: Don't know if I should be charmed or disgusted with them calling it the 'Oslo Principles' — everything coming from Oslo's been fake, deadly or both for the past decades, in fact, it's hard to think of anything even in or about Oslo that isn't fake or harmful in some way.

Back to topic: I would believe in a legal approach 5 or 10 years ago, when I believed in civilisation in general as a somewhat benign phenomenon that could be used both for bad and for good. Go legal! I'd say, and about time, too! But now? Don't even get me started on the legal system.

I understand your position, and I assume that others on this forum will have similar doubts about the possible effectiveness of the legal approach to addressing the climate change challenge. Nevertheless, until the "wheels come of the bus" of modern civilization legal action will remain one of main different courses of action to take w.r.t. addressing climate change, and several lawsuits on this matter have already been filed, and I expect that after CoP21 in Paris is finished there will be another round of lawsuits filed in numerous jurisdictions around the world.

Furthermore, for many insurance companies and investors, the mere threat of a new swarm of climate change related lawsuits will cause them to change their business practices in manners that will make it more difficult for the fossil fuel industry (and related business) to continue to externalize the damage caused by their products. I would expect that in ten, or more years, many countries will need to establish new "Climate Change Courts" in order to prevent these current court systems from becoming over-crowded with cases.

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2015, 12:43:01 AM »

The linked article makes it clear that while it is highly unlikely that the temperature rise can be limited to 2C, let alone 1.5C, the big point in trying to recognize a 1.5C target is that it provides a scientific baseline in the debate for climate reparations by legal means.

Jeff Tollefson, (2015), "Global-warming limit of 2 °C hangs in the balance: Panel creates scientific baseline for debate about climate reparations", Nature News & Comment, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17202

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-limit-of-2-c-hangs-in-the-balance-1.17202

sidd · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2015, 04:48:38 AM »

yes, this is what i had been waiting for, rooted in old common law against smoke from burning affecting neighbours downwind and public nuisance acts. Glad to see the tort quantified.

viddaloo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2015, 06:04:22 AM »

In order to be effective given the relevant timeframe of the problem they are trying to solve, these so–called Oslo Principles would have to bring back the guillotine. Making it more like a Paris Principle, I guess.

The initiative reminds of a similar effort to quantify the future or total cost of carbon emitted today. The danger is that it gives a false assurance that this is all there is to it: The total cost of all emissions will be x gazillion, and then each km3 will cost that divided by some huge number, but still nice and tidy figures that everyone can understand and relate to. The pedagogic lesson to be taught is 'fix this now rather than later, cause later it will be costlier'. But if conservative science and expectations for future consequences are used, which is highly probable, the original mistake is multiplied down to this 'total cost of carbon' metric, resulting in disinformation and a false sense of security that this is a 'should or ought to do earlier' matter.

If future costs of carbon are approaching civilisational collapse and/or biosphere collapse, adding speed and severity to the already ongoing 6th Great Extinction, then there is a case to be made that the total cost of one km3 of carbon would be ∞/n, which is still ∞ no matter the size of n.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2015, 05:47:35 PM »

Quote from: viddaloo on March 31, 2015, 06:04:22 AM

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

I think that part of the climate change problem is that most people just want one simple resolution (such as an early collapse of our current crony-capitalism into ISIS like feudal states around the world) to the problem; rather than simply getting started a little bit at a time on multiple fronts including legal, regulations, taxes (Carbon Fee & Dividend with Tariffs), corruption, income inequality, family planning etc. Using simplistic thinking, Zeno's paradoxes would lead one to incorrectly assume that by making incremental efforts (with a big picture in mind) one would never get to ones goals; which is most certainly not true (see the Wiki-link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

The current public at large seem to have a growing problem with attention deficit syndrome that is also isolating them, which in-turn stops them from working together to make them most of their incremental contributions

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2015, 04:22:08 PM »

While not all climate change lawsuits will win, and while some climate change lawsuits will be made by denalists (like ALEC, see below), the following links present examples of such lawsuits that represent only the tip of the coming spear:

Federal lawsuit relevant to Western US States:

http://www.westernlaw.org/our-work/climate-energy/clean-energy/assisting-nasa-climate-scientist-dr-james-hansen-federal-climat

http://www.westernlaw.org/sites/default/files/Hansen%20Amicus%20Brief%20Filed%2011.14.11.pdf

Oregon Teen's lawsuit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/climate-change-lawsuit-teens-oregon_n_6490036.html

Farm Insurance Lawsuits:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0517/Climate-change-lawsuits-filed-against-some-200-US-communities

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Threatens lawsuit:

http://desmogblog.com/2015/04/05/alec-climate-denial-lawsuit-against-critics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/05/this-conservative-group-is-tired-of-being-accused-of-climate-denial-and-is-fighting-back/

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2015, 04:43:01 PM »

The Dutch Government will need to defend itself in court against charges of climate change inaction, per the linked article (part of a growing wave of legal action to come):

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/07/dutch-government-heads-to-court-on-climate-change-charges/

Lennart van der Linde · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2015, 09:38:35 PM »

For more information on the Dutch climate case see:
http://www.wijwillenactie.nl/?page_id=1097

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2015, 02:17:15 AM »

Yet another example of a climate change related lawsuit:

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/04/07/shell-files-lawsuit-against-arctic-drilling-protesters/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2015, 02:21:45 AM »

Oregon teens' climate-change suit moves forward, hits court Tuesday with call to protect our air
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/04/arguments_in_oregon_teens_clim.html

Laurent · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:42:53 AM »

Dutch government facing legal action over failure to reduce carbon emissions
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/dutch-government-facing-legal-action-over-failure-to-reduce-carbon-emissions

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2015, 11:54:18 AM »

Per the linked article, pension funds failing to manage climate risk could get sued:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/27/pension-funds-failing-to-manage-climate-risk-could-get-sued/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #15 on:** June 09, 2015, 01:55:26 PM »

Can Local Officials Who Ignore Climate Change Risks Be Sued?
The act-of-god defense for extreme weather impacts is being challenged in court
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-local-officials-who-ignore-climate-change-risks-be-sued/

Laurent · « **Reply #16 on:** June 09, 2015, 03:33:40 PM »

Legal action is the only way politicians will move quickly, the only thing they really listen apart from the rich people.

sidd · « **Reply #17 on:** June 09, 2015, 09:28:59 PM »

Not just legal action, this is hardball. I have posted this on the insurance thread, but the scientific american article contains a reference to the reasons for withdrawal of the Farmer's insurance lawsuit.

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2015, 12:54:45 PM »

Dutch court orders state to reduce emissions by 25% within five years to protect its citizens from climate change in world’s first climate liability suit.

Quote

A court in the Hague has declared the Dutch government’s climate policy illegal and ordered it to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years, in a landmark ruling.

To cheers from climate campaigners in the court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were illegal.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

Lennart van der Linde · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2015, 09:06:09 PM »

And now let's see how much power the democratic rule of law really has...

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:09:03 AM »

Washington State Youth Win Unprecedented Decision in their Climate Change Lawsuit

Quote

“The effect of this decision is that for the first time in the United States, a court of law has ordered a state agency to consider the most current and best available climate science when deciding to regulate carbon dioxide emissions,” said Andrea Rodgers of the Western Environmental Law Center, attorney for the youth petitioners. “The court directed Ecology to apply the agency’s own findings that climate change presents an imminent threat to Washington and demands immediate action. The ball is now in Ecology’s court to do the right thing and protect our children and future generations.”
...
“Kids understand the threats climate change will have on our future,” said 13-year-old petitioner Zoe Foster. “I’m not going to sit by and watch my government do nothing. We don’t have time to waste. I’m pushing my government to take real action on climate, and I won’t stop until change is made.”

The court’s opinion acknowledges that climate change is currently happening and will have devastating impacts on the natural environment of Washington. Citing Ecology’s December report, the court wrote:

“Washington State’s existing statutory limits should be adjusted to better reflect the current science. The limits need to be more aggressive in order for Washington to do its part to address climate risks.”

http://www.westernlaw.org/article/washington-state-youth-win-unprecedented-decision-their-climate-change-lawsuit-press-release

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2015, 04:13:30 PM »

The U.S. Supreme Court sides with Big Coal: The Court just blocked a major EPA air pollution rule.
But that may not mean much.

Quote

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 5-4 decision in Michigan vs. EPA. The regulations, the court determined, were not “appropriate and necessary” — as required by the Clean Air Act — because the agency failed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before introducing them.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/29/scotus_sides_with_big_coal_the_court_just_struck_down_a_major_epa_air_pollution_rule/

Justice Kagan’s Blistering Response To The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Mercury Pollution
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/29/3675111/scotus-epa-kagan-dissent/

And why this decision may not matter much in the long run:

Obama May Win by Losing in Quirk of Supreme Court EPA Review
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-24/obama-may-win-by-losing-in-quirk-of-supreme-court-epa-review

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #22 on:** July 01, 2015, 04:23:05 AM »

Following Dutch Footsteps, Activists to Sue Aussie Government on Climate
Landmark ruling raised 'energy and appetite of the community to stand up and use the courts when government fouls them,' says environmental lawyer.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/30/following-dutch-footsteps-activists-sue-aussie-government-climate

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2015, 08:47:10 PM »

Oklahoma Case Could Open Doors to More Earthquake-Fracking Lawsuits
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/02072015/oklahoma-case-could-open-doors-more-earthquake-fracking-lawsuits-oil-gas-drilling

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2015, 01:45:00 AM »

Judge Shuts Down Attack On Colorado’s Ambitious Clean Energy Law
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/14/3680340/colorado-renewable-energy-decision/

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #25 on:** July 17, 2015, 12:53:10 AM »

In my youth I would have naively assumed that of course countries are required to protect their citizens from climate change; however, in the real world that we live in this question must be actively litigated, and as the following linked article states the Dutch court is the only court in the world to date to hold its government responsible to protect its citizens from climate change, and this ruling is being appealed and could possibly be overturned. Evidently this means that most governments around the world believe that the people serve them rather than the other way around.

http://ensia.com/features/are-countries-legally-required-to-protect-their-citizens-from-climate-change/

Extract: "Are countries legally required to protect their citizens from climate change?
A Dutch court recently ruled that greenhouse gas reduction is a state obligation. Here’s what that could mean for the rest of the world."

Tor Bejnar · « **Reply #26 on:** July 17, 2015, 04:27:16 PM »

Russia, U.S. Sign Fishing Ban in Arctic as Sea Ice Melts

Quote

The United States, Russia and other Arctic nations signed an agreement on Thursday to bar their fishing fleets from fast-thawing seas around the North Pole, an agreement delayed more than a year by tensions over Ukraine. The accord, also signed in Oslo by the ambassadors of Canada, Norway and Denmark, is a response to global warming, which is melting sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean, an area the size of the Mediterranean.

The central Arctic probably has no commercial fish stocks now, experts say, but melting sea ice may draw fish such as cod farther north. Forty percent of the area was briefly open water when summer sea ice shrank to a record low in 2012.
...

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:03:28 PM »

A brief history of the group who won an unprecedented legal victory forcing the Netherlands government to cut greenhouse gas emissions faster. Australians ask: could their approach work here?

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/22/could-australians-sue-for-stronger-climate-action/#.dpuf

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #28 on:** July 31, 2015, 04:04:21 PM »

Unfortunately, the forces of darkness are preparing a tsunami of litigation against Obama's climate change plan. Even if Obama's plan prevails, the legal effort to fight this assault will take time and resources that could be better used to fight climate change:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/31/tsunami-of-litigation-against-obama-climate-plan-set-to-fail-say-ngos/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #29 on:** August 07, 2015, 10:00:09 PM »

Nice, but odd that they do this while simultaneously preparing to drill in the Arctic.

Shell Just Broke Up With ALEC Over Climate-Change Denials
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/07/3689364/shell-no-to-alec-yes-to-arctic/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2015, 01:43:00 AM »

'Future generations' sue Obama administration over climate change

Quote

"This case presents the opportunity for a landmark decision like Brown v. Board of Education (on racial equality) or Obergefell v. Hodges (on marriage equality),” Julia Olson, one of the kids’ lawyers, wrote in a briefing sent to msnbc. It asks the court to decide whether children have a constitutional right to protection from fossil fuel policies that “knowingly create dangerous climate change.”

Olson is executive director of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has spearheaded climate-related lawsuits in all 50 states. All have fallen short of success in one way or another. But this new federal filing goes further than anything the group – or anyone else – has filed in the past.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/future-generations-sue-obama-administration-over-climate-change

opensheart · « **Reply #31 on:** August 13, 2015, 07:18:11 PM »

:Sigmetnow
You beat me to posting the same artical.

Go Kids...
I would that this would get some publicity and become a talked about issue.

JER · « **Reply #32 on:** August 13, 2015, 09:14:42 PM »

A landmark climate change lawsuit has just been filed in U.S. federal court. American youth are alleging the federal government has violated their constitutional rights by failing to take action to avoid harm from climate change and by continuing to act in a manner supporting ongoing exploitation of fossil fuels.

Press Release: http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/15.08.12FederalClimateLawsuitPressRelease.pdf

Complaint: http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/15.08.12YouthComplaintAgainstUS.pdf

Declaration filed by renowned climate scientist James Hansen in support of the Plaintiffs (one of whom is his granddaughter): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150812_FINAL_HANSEN_DEC_FOR_US_DISTRICT_OREGON_9pm.pdf

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #33 on:** September 11, 2015, 04:56:18 PM »

The linked articles discuss some aspects of the "loss & damage" issues being discussed in the lead-up to CoP21 in Paris. The legal question of culpability for over a century of high GHG emissions by the developed world will become critical as the true extent of the loss & damage is revealed in the next couple of decades (by which time our climate change models should be much more accurate):

http://news.yahoo.com/ministers-talk-finance-seek-bolster-climate-pact-160449175.html
Extract: ""We should bring to the table, to the discussion, a very strong political signal around climate finance," said Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar Vidal, who presided over last year's climate conference -- referring to the $100 billion (90 billion euros) per year that rich nations had committed in 2009 to make available from 2020."

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/09/strong-climate-deal-needed-to-combat-future-refugee-crises/
Extract: "Climate change has been held responsible many of the social and economic woes affecting mainly the poorest in the global South and now many are seeing it as one of the root causes of refugee crises."

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #34 on:** September 11, 2015, 10:26:20 PM »

The new "Climate Debt and Credit" thread puts some numbers to the per capita costs for each country's carbon emissions: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1394.msg63100.html#msg63100

Referencing this paper:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2774.html

More here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908132818.htm
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/09/08/countries-edge-towards-loss-and-damage-deal-at-climate-talks/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #35 on:** September 13, 2015, 04:43:33 PM »

This crystalizes the Question of the Decade: Wreck the earth for our immediate purposes, or protect the earth for future generations?

The $5.6 Billion Bird: How Will The Sage Grouse Fight End?

Quote

Energy development, mining, oil and gas drilling and some forms of ranching all pose threats to the land inhabited by the sage grouse. Coal, natural gas, crude oil, and beef industries, to name a few, all stand to take a huge hit if the land is deemed off-limits to them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/5-6-billion-bird-why-u-s-needs-greater-sage-n424311

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #36 on:** September 13, 2015, 06:30:21 PM »

I make this quick post to note that "loss and damage" from climate change is a criminal issue and that it is the responsibility of the courts to hold those responsible for trigging such losses and damages due to their criminal GHG emissions to pay for these damages.

Thus if it is the intent of the developed world to avoid payment for the losses and damages that they are currently causing, and will soon be increasingly causing, then these people are effectively criminals and are engaging in "crony capitalism" that is little different than mafia gangsterism. If we hold those in power in the developed world to a lower standard than we hold for the mafia then we should not think of ourselves as civilized nor as the paragon of animals.

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #37 on:** September 14, 2015, 05:29:49 PM »

Africa Sees U.N. Climate Conference as “Court Case” for the Continent

Quote

“It is a court case for Africa, and Africa must argue it out, and not keep looking for scientific evidence,” Ruppel told an Africa Climate Talks (ACT!) forum on ‘Democratising Global Climate Change Governance and Building an African Consensus toward COP 21 and Beyond’ last week in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The forum, which was organised by the Climate for Development in Africa (ClimDev-Africa) Programme, was part of the preparatory process for Africa’s contribution to COP 21 in Paris.

Africa has always based its climate argument on geopolitics and science. However, in Paris, experts say that Africa will have to include a good number of lawyers who will table existing evidence of what climate change has caused, what Africans have done about it, and what they can do given appropriate financial and technological support.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/09/africa-sees-u-n-climate-conference-as-court-case-for-the-continent/

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #38 on:** September 17, 2015, 01:37:44 PM »

Citizens should launch lawsuits against governments that shirk their climate change responsibilities, a leading lawyer has said after successfully suing the Dutch government.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N11L4SS20150916

wili · « **Reply #39 on:** September 18, 2015, 07:24:07 AM »

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming 'Skeptics'

Quote

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #40 on:** September 22, 2015, 12:24:18 AM »

Kiribati climate change refugee told he must leave New Zealand

Quote

A man seeking to be the world's first climate change refugee has been booked on a flight home to Kiribati on Wednesday, despite his lawyer saying that is a breach of justice.

Ioane Teitiota has been in custody in Mt Eden Prison after his bid to claim climate change refugee status was dismissed last week.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/72276281/kiribati-climate-change-refugee-told-he-must-leave-new-zealand

OrganicSu · « **Reply #41 on:** September 22, 2015, 09:09:16 AM »

Could a 'crimes against humanity' lawsuit under climate change impacts succeed against VW and/or its responsible employees for it's illigeal emissions test manipulations?

Clare · « **Reply #42 on:** September 22, 2015, 09:13:21 AM »

Thanks for posting this Sigmetnow,

& updating this evening, it's final for him to have to leave. This man was employed & supporting his family. many are saying it would be better to have Pacific is refugees who can adapt to NZ life & ways, & have existing support networks here, much more easily than our trying to support Syrians etc who may wish to return to Syria oneday & may find living here v difficult & needing huge amounts of support to begin with.
Our government, just like others are hiding behind the out of date ?UN definitions of what is a 'refugee'.
'Climate change refugee' to be deported - Government
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11517167
& an earlier report:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/284875/kiribati-family-%27terrified%27-of-going-home

The birth rates are v high there & living conditions not v good.
My late uncle (US Marine WW2) fought at the Battle of Tarawa, now their battle is with the sea & the CO2 levels & politicians!

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #43 on:** September 23, 2015, 01:21:44 AM »

Quote from: OrganicSu on September 22, 2015, 09:09:16 AM

Could a 'crimes against humanity' lawsuit under climate change impacts succeed against VW and/or its responsible employees for it's illigeal emissions test manipulations?

I doubt there will be much left to recover after all the other complainants complete their lawsuits. Here's just a sampling so far:

Quote

US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Justice and the California Air Resources Board have already contacted VW.
- - - - -
Citing anonymous sources, Bloomberg reported Monday that VW was under a criminal investigation by the Justice Department in association with skirting the emissions testing.
- - - - -
Environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe said it will sue carmakers to have diesel vehicles removed from the streets starting 2016.
- - - - -
Small wonder that Germany's politicians are calling for blood, with Lower Saxony's Economy Minister Olaf Lies warning of "personnel consequences" already.
- - - - -
Andreas Tilp, a lawyer representing investors in German court, says VW may have to pay damages to stockholders in Germany if the allegations of U.S. authorities are upheld. Investors may seek to recover losses incurred because of the stock’s decline.

"We’re convinced that VW failed to properly inform the markets and is liable to investors who can seek billions," Tilp said. "Concealing for years the immense risks of the pollution manipulation and the U.S. probes is a violation of capital market rules.”

This situation is being followed under the "Cars" thread....

OrganicSu · « **Reply #44 on:** September 23, 2015, 06:34:56 AM »

Hi Sigmetnow et al, the "crimes against humanity" lawsuit wouldn't be for money. It would utterly shock other company's executives and employees, hopefully making them think twice about how far they sacrifice the climate for profit. VW's other lawsuits would stretch their resources and attention thereby helping this case. The general public's perception of climate change would surely be changed. The American press might run wild with the story as VW is a foreign company. I don't dismiss the absolute severity of previous crimes against humanity but I see "near term human extinction" mentioned more than more. The legal case could be made but would it be heard by the courts?

Bruce Steele · « **Reply #45 on:** September 23, 2015, 07:42:35 AM »

Could someone please make the distinction between NOx emissions and 45 MPG diesel vehicles like the TDI's we are talking about? OK there are emissions issues with nitrogen but how do they compare with SUVs that are hard pressed to get MPG above 20 . We are comparing carbon and nitrogen and maybe nitrogen has Heath effects but carbon is about to crush multiple ecosystems both terrestrial and oceanic. Maybe health issues trump ecosystem issues in a litigious society with all rewards going to the lawyers and nothing to the various species faced with extinctions but I see no gain in supporting arguments against VW other than a gottcha mentality that so much pervades our society. Does anyone think this will result in lower emission vehicles? Screw the lawyers and question the media thrust that will result in more harm not less. Screw the lawyers. This will not support solutions . I love VW and I have owned one since 1972.
Can we please get some priorities straight? This is confusing to the public at large but the climate issues should on this site be better defined . Maybe I am wrong but my political antenna are senseing
a debacle for the eviornment. We will all be worse off at the end of crushing VW. Opinion not fact so please define the risks NOX and CO2 in the long run.
Some here like to confuse rather than educate, I hope people here know the difference. A confusion campaign benefits status quo, BAU, and anniliation. Careful where you stand.

OrganicSu · « **Reply #46 on:** September 23, 2015, 08:55:56 AM »

Hi Bruce et al, thank you. You are correct.

TerryM · « **Reply #47 on:** September 23, 2015, 03:30:24 PM »

Bruce

Might be a great time to pick up a few VW's for around the farm ;>)

The whole thing stinks of international politics. Europe may have been getting cold feet re. American plans for Ukraine. No longer.

There may well be 11M vehicles using this software. Since less than .5M were for sale in the US of A, doesn't that indicate that the software had some other purpose?

As I understand it the US is threatening to sue based on the 10.5 million auto's that did meet all local environmental laws. What business is it of theirs what went into a car built in Germany and sold in Russia.

Terry

BTW still miss my 62 beetle. Best car I've ever owned.

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #48 on:** September 23, 2015, 03:56:10 PM »

Quote from: Bruce Steele on September 23, 2015, 07:42:35 AM

Could someone please make the distinction between NOx emissions and 45 MPG diesel vehicles like the TDI's we are talking about? OK there are emissions issues with nitrogen but how do they compare with SUVs that are hard pressed to get MPG above 20 . We are comparing carbon and nitrogen and maybe nitrogen has Heath effects but carbon is about to crush multiple ecosystems both terrestrial and oceanic. Maybe health issues trump ecosystem issues in a litigious society with all rewards going to the lawyers and nothing to the various species faced with extinctions but I see no gain in supporting arguments against VW other than a gottcha mentality that so much pervades our society. Does anyone think this will result in lower emission vehicles? Screw the lawyers and question the media thrust that will result in more harm not less. Screw the lawyers. This will not support solutions . I love VW and I have owned one since 1972.
Can we please get some priorities straight? This is confusing to the public at large but the climate issues should on this site be better defined . Maybe I am wrong but my political antenna are senseing
a debacle for the eviornment. We will all be worse off at the end of crushing VW. Opinion not fact so please define the risks NOX and CO2 in the long run.
Some here like to confuse rather than educate, I hope people here know the difference. A confusion campaign benefits status quo, BAU, and anniliation. Careful where you stand.

While I completely agree that NOx does not equal CO2, and that the legal system often benefits lawyers more than litigants, I still think the VW emissions scandal will play a huge role in future climate change action. Making a big deal of the fact that a large company has been duping their customers with their emissions claims... will sound the same, to a lot of people, as fossil fuel companies contributing to carbon emissions and not admitting the damage it causes. Folks may not understand exactly what it is about cars that contributes to global warming, but having the world acting on the VW cheating crisis will make it easier for them to envision the world acting against the fossil fuel industry.

This diesel scandal will most certainly drive the automobile industry towards cleaner cars much faster than they otherwise would have. Mazda, for example, is too small a company to have developed diesels, but they are now deciding between hybrids and full electrics as their way forward. And drivers who bought a "clean diesel" because they were concerned about emissions will now take another look at the cleaner car options. Pulling up to the kids' soccer game in a "clean diesel" will no longer have the cachet it once had.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100133_mazda-tests-hybrid-vs-electric-to-see-which-japanese-drivers-prefer

Sigmetnow · « **Reply #49 on:** September 30, 2015, 04:56:03 PM »

ExxonMobil Faces Heightened Risk of Climate Litigation, Its Critics Say
Advocates explore holding the company accountable after new evidence shows it's long understood that global warming threatened its business and the planet.

Quote

In an online petition drive, in public statements and behind the scenes, environmental advocates and their political allies are pressing federal and state authorities to launch investigations, subpoenas or prosecutions to pin down what Exxon knew and when. The oil giant's critics say Exxon might be held liable either for failing to disclose the risks to shareholders and financial regulators, or for manufacturing doubt to deceive people about the science of climate change.

"I think the case is already there to be made," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. He has raised the possibility of a Justice Department investigation under federal racketeering law. A former prosecutor, he is one of the Senate's leading voices for action to address the climate crisis.

The interest in pursuing legal action against Exxon has been sharpened by new disclosures from an eight-month InsideClimate News investigation documenting extensive concern within the company about the risks of global warming dating back nearly 40 years, according to environmental advocates, litigators and legal experts.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/23092015/ExxonMobil-May-Face-Heightened-Climate-Litigation-Its-Critics-Say

News:

Author Topic: Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions (Read 90410 times)