Slashdot Mirror
Alaskan Village Sues Over Global Warming
hightower_40 writes to mention that a small Alaskan village has sued two dozen oil, power, and coal companies, blaming them for contributing to global warming. "Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal areas."
True, but bear in mind that lawsuits like this seem mostly intended not as an actual reparation of damages but to make a large public statement.
Attention whoring, in a way.
So they've already won what they wanted: to get attention for the difficulties that they and their neighbors have been having.
IANAL myself, so take this comment cum grano salis.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
They're looking to cash in on the "environmental windfall lottery",
Just follow the money.
A million bucks each and they'll go away happy. It doesn't cost a million bucks a head to relocate people, unless you're relocating them to the ISS.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Yea I was wondering if they used any fossil fuels themselves? Are they taking any money from the State? In Alaska they pay you a reverse tax each year from all the oil that is exported from Alaska.
If so I would say... If you are part the problem then why should you sue?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I had some law lectures during engineering school and one particular comment by the lecturer stuck with me and is quite apposite to your remark.
He said "always follow the money". If someone doesn't have money, or at least insurance, don't waste your time and lawyers' fees suing them. Instead look for the richest parties who can be held responsible for the damage and sue them.
I cannot comment myself on how valid my teacher's comments were, but he at least was a lawyer.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Exxon is presently trying to get the SCOTUS to overturn $2.5B punitive damages awarded to fishermen and other interests affected adversely by the Valdez spill (interesting story... drunk driver, I mean captain). Anyhow, it is related because punitive damages are weird.. they got $2.5B earlier, the court may reduce it, to what $1.25B? And Exxon wants to pay $0. How much is appropriate?
At least in the oil spill, one defendant is involved, Exxon. In global warming, who is culpable, and to what extent? Who suffered, and what dollar amounts? And what is an appropriate punitive damages number? Adn think of the endless appeals.
Well, I see where you got your information!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
How many of these plaintiffs took money from these very same oil companies by way of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Where were the complaints then? Should the people who took money be liable? I think so.
I suggest we use the APF to pay this lawsuit, then watch how fast it gets forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
"The Fund grew from an initial investment of $734,000 in 1977 to the current sum of approximately forty billion dollars as of July 13, 2007. "
I find it more than a little distasteful that these greedy s.o.b's think they can collect on both ends.
Oil companies don't try to defend against the argument that using petroleum based products for transportation and heating causes pollution. It does do that. What it doesn't do is CAUSE global warming. People should be moving away from oil because it FUNDS terrorists.
However, the linked article says that the GLOBAL temperature (presumably mean) has dropped precipitously in the past year. There are some graphs here that at least apparently back this up. According to the article in the Daily Tech, this is enough to offset all the increase in the last 100 years.
I have no way of testing the data, indeed, no way of knowing if they are talking about mean or median temperature in the articles, but just to be clear: the article that is linked is not saying "some places are colder, global warming is wrong", but "the whole planet is colder, global warming is wrong". That's an entirely different animal.
You have a knack for finding Exxon-funded stuff to link to. Why is that? This time you linked to something by Richard Lindzen.
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute."
The big push for at least a decade was that we were being threatened by global warming. The ice caps were going to melt, the seas were going to rise and who knows what else was going to come with that. All we hear about is some impending doom initiated by humanity. Except that it never actually arrives; it's always going to happen some day soon.
On now that evidence is arising that discredits the notion of global warming the terms get switched around on us. So now it's climate change. The nice thing about this term is that it's so all-encompassing. Any time we get weather a bit out of the ordinary it's chalked up to be due to climate change, specifically man-made climate change.
Last month is snowed lightly in Baghdad for the first time anyone can recall. You'd think so impressive an event would be covered more than it was. I eventually found a brief Agence France-Presse story about it. Predictably they stick a bit in there about how this was due to climate change. Like there's a set temperature for any spot on Earth.
I guess the implication is that the Earth's climate has always been static. I can't help but think that Creationists should be the most ardent believers of man-made climate change given that they're convinced the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Forecasters can barely predict the weather into next week and I'm supposed to accept has fact incomplete computer models that predict the weather in the next 50 or 100 years. More importantly, I'm supposed to subscribe to the belief that a global temperature increase is inherently a bad thing.
A while ago I was reading about the history of Japan, specifically the Jomon period. It turns out that between 4000BC and 2000BC temperatures tended to be several degrees Celsius higher then they are today and the seas are believed to have been 5m higher. The fascinating part was that the people living in Japan at the time thrived during this era, having developed rice-paddy farming and government control. When the climate cooled the population of these people declined dramatically. This trend is reflected around the world. Europe endured famines in the 1300s during periods of cooling and glacial expansion.
Unfortunately, it seems to be taboo to argue against man-made climate change. Any evidence critics put forward is dismissed off-hand. The double-standards are laughable. A believer will use a localized event as evidence of climate change. A critic does the same and their argument is discredited for being based on local weather.
So now we have these eskimo pulling what is essentially a publicity stunt. Well, it's worse than that. Behind them are a pack of scumbag lawyers looking to line their pockets.
You are linking to a site that is funded by Exxon, in case you didn't know.
Does Exxon fund wikipedia now? Most of those looked like US Federal Agencies or universities. I know Exxon's a tax payer, but I seriously doubt that they pay for that much climate research. Damn, that's really impressive. I didn't realize Exxon funded
Joint science academies' statement 2007
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Meteorological Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That actually makes Exxon look like the greenest company around.
Ok, so, a 15 kW fan will cost about $30,000. This includes the tower. If you place it properly, you'll get full-power for ~10 hours per day, so 150 kW/h. It will do so for the next twenty years with little if any maintenance. That's 1,095,000 kW/h for $30,000. That's $0.0274 per kW/h. Less than three cents.
All this, and NO TOXIC WASTE.
Go, propaganda.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
So, basically what I'm saying is that I don't worry about nuclear power because there is nothing to worry about. Aside from one major accident (And that in Russia) there have been no major accidents (where containment was lost) at any nuclear power station.
...that's a pretty bug fucking "oops" you're trying to scoop under the rug there.
Yes, because solar and wind farms are built in forests. Good grief, have you ever seen any of these? They are located:
- off-shore
- on ridges
- in plains with heavy prevailing winds
- in deserts
- on rooftops
In short, no place that actually needs to be cleared of anything. Not to mention that building ANYTHING requires the use of fossil fuels. ESPECIALLY your precious nuclear plants, whose fuel has to be dug out of mines with giant excavation equipment.
Seriously. There are plenty of reasons to rail against Gore and environmentalists, but your reasons are not part of it. Not to mention that they make absolutely no sense.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
assum getting energy from the wind comes at no cost?
TYhere are uisually put where there are strong winds; which are often migratory paths for birds. The Wind farm in califormia kill 1000's of birds a year.
The wind slows down, so what efect does taking energy from the wind have? does it change rain fall patterns? certianly, does it change bird migration? wetlands? inland rainfall?
I'm not saying we should try it, just thet we should remember that we don't get something for nothing. Also,'renewable energy' is a marketing phrase.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To support which part of it? That people's concern over plant emissions can be targetted to known issues in that respect such as the toxic byproducts they introduce into the atmosphere?
That since there is an endless debate whether we are causing global warming or not, why not realize that the other concerns (increased CO, CO2, sulfur emissions) are still an issue. That they are still an issue even if global warming is just a fantasy?
What data do you want to support things I am sure you know? Burning oil or coal releases CO, and a bunch of other pollutants into the atmosphere - as well as of course CO2 - which the SMART thing to do (regardless of the validity of global warming) is to try to live in balance with the way the earth was before industry grew to the point it is at now.
Do you really want data that says breathing CO or sulfur emissions or such is harmful and a bad thing? Do you really want data saying that burning coal or oil produces such emissions? Give me a break.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!