Posted on 02/12/2018 11:31:32 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
First they tried suing the utility companies. Then they tried suing the automakers. They even tried suing oil companies on behalf of an Alaskan village in danger of being inundated by oil-fueled rising sea levels.
Each approach ended when courts said that the judiciary branch wasn’t the right place to address human-induced global warming, a problem so big it requires a coordinated international response that only legislators can implement.
Now private plaintiff lawyers and their allies in government are trying a new strategy: Suing under state-law theories of public nuisance. San Francisco and several other California cities and counties have sued five major oil companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, claiming they knowingly sell products that, when burned, emit greenhouse gases.
“The people who made this product should help pay for the consequences of its use, especially when they had superior knowledge,” said David Bookbinder, chief counsel at the Niskanen Center and consultant to private lawyers representing the cities in their lawsuits against the oil industry.
It’s the kind of argument plaintiff lawyers make when they’re suing drug companies or the manufacturers of defective products, under the theory a company is in the best position to understand the risks of its products and protect consumers against them.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Who’s that guy? Where’s Goebbels?
\o/
Global Warming-Lawyers-Public Nuisance.
Five words which go together
The defendants should stop refining and distribution of gasoline and heating oil to the plaintiffs.
Problem solved.
5.56mm
One could make the argument that frivolous lawsuits are a public nuisance.
This is hilarious! Why not sue humanity for breathing out “dangerous greenhouse gases?” Unfortunately, some will take this crap seriously.
Well - they are certainly public nuisances when they open their mouths - and they emit greenhouse gases while they’re at it....
Apply the same “public nuisance” argument to immigration policies. What is the carbon footprint of a person moving from 3rd-World to 1st-World?
Hint: They just called him Saul, he came from Chicago, and Hillary wrote her college thesis about him.
Ah, thanks. What was his name? Goebbelinsky?
Did the lawyers show up to court in gasoline or electric (coal) powered vehicles?
Attorneys operate under the lowest bar of ethical behavior of any of the ‘credentialed’ professions, e.g. such a hypothetical standard is virtually non-existant.
You’ve got it!
Yes, if they did arrive in a petroleum powered vehicle turn right around and hand them a lawsuit. After all wouldn’t a Environmental Lawyer know the risks more than anyone else.
Really all the idiots have to do is provide proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that their fictitious claims are in fact real.
Only problem they have in that is they can’t.
Possession of carbon-based motor fuel in a motor vehicle by a member of the bar could be made a federal felony.
“Yes, we can.”
The #FakeScientists didn’t work so now they send in the lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.