tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post9119652787851169061..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Yet more climate suingWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-71598093707661075412018-08-28T22:52:47.796+00:002018-08-28T22:52:47.796+00:00Climate Damages & Deception: Taking Big Oil to...Climate Damages & Deception: Taking Big Oil to Court to Pay Their Fair Share<br /><br />Climate litigation is a growing movement in the United States and around the world, as cities and communities seek to hold corporate polluters accountable for their contributions to increasingly costly impacts of climate change.<br /><br />The Union of Concerned Scientists invites you to a panel discussion about the lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies and demands that they pay their fair share to protect people and property from the harm that will inevitably be caused by sea level rise and other climate impacts.<br /><br />Climate Damages & Deception: Taking Big Oil to Court to Pay Their Fair Share<br />An Affiliate Event of the Global Climate Action Summit<br />Date: Tuesday, September 11<br />Time: 3:30–5:00 p.m.<br />Location: The David Brower Center, 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704<br /><br />The panel will be moderated by Jason Mark, editor of Sierra magazine, and speakers include:<br /><br />• Yvonne Meré – deputy city attorney of San Francisco and chief of the Complex and Affirmative Litigation Department<br />• Kristina Dahl, PhD – senior climate scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists<br />• Steven Feit – attorney, Center for International Environmental Law<br />• May Boeve – executive director, 350.org<br /><br />UCS is cosponsoring this event with 350.org, Center for International Environmental Law, and Fossil Free California.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-52032905328332320792018-08-27T19:36:36.302+00:002018-08-27T19:36:36.302+00:00I could support the courts (in the USA) as having ...I could support the courts (in the USA) as having had some impact; well, that's obvious. That they've had a central role I think dubious. It's only the boilerplate intro to a paper, anyway, so doesn't matter (one of the things that always used to annoy me when I had to write papers was the need for boilerplate. Every paper must begin by wasting space and everyone's time by placing itself in some imaginary context).William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-2272958064649698292018-08-27T14:05:32.498+00:002018-08-27T14:05:32.498+00:00"it starts rather dubiously with The courts h..."it starts rather dubiously with The courts have played a central role in climate policy"<br /><br />In the US, I think this is a defensible claim. Note that McCormick et al. aren't arguing that these "youth" climate cases are the way to go - however, Mass v. EPA (2007) on the federal level, along with a lot of lawsuits slowing down or stopping various fossil fuel projects on the local level, are examples of places where the courts did have an impact. <br /><br />First paragraph of the discussion is relevant: <br />"There are several important things to note about this analysis. Cases brought by proregulatory litigants tend to be won most frequently when challenges are based on the CAA, ESA and CEQA. Antiregulatory litigants have the most success in cases that raise issues under the public trust and other common law doctrines. The public trust claims are difficult for plaintiffs to win for two reasons. One is the same causation issue that makes it difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in common law nuisance cases. The second is that public trust has historically had a rather narrow scope as it mostly dealt with the preservation of coastal land for public use33. The Juliana case is a novel public trust theory that seeks to extend public trust duties well beyond their historical bounds34. The Juliana case is in the early stages of litigation, so it has not yet established a public trust precedent."<br /><br />-MMM<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-55361226500643482982018-08-27T08:20:50.822+00:002018-08-27T08:20:50.822+00:00Qualcomm is not noted for it's interest in pur...Qualcomm is not noted for it's interest in pure science.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-9015553017420780062018-08-27T00:45:50.536+00:002018-08-27T00:45:50.536+00:00Your current organization does not get you past a ...Your current organization does not get you past a paywall of a scientific journal?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006287597147584887noreply@blogger.com