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."

9 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. Mistargeted law suit? by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL. It would seem to me that if you are going to sue someone for causing you harm, you would need to sue everyone involved. In this case, that would mean sueing almost everyone in the world. It's not fair to target one small group just because they have money. IANAL.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    1. Re:Mistargeted law suit? by snarfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gore's house is entirely solar and wind now, FYI.

  2. More about money grubbing lawyers... by bagboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    than anything else. I live in Alaska and can tell you the driving force behind this is actually "The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms." The natives in the village use gas-powered vehicles for transportation and (generator) electricity for their homes, suing the people who provide the source for those items.

    Shoot, why don't we all climb on board. Oh, wait - I drive a car to work and use natural gas to heat my home, plus electricity to power my net activities...

  3. It's not "mis-targetted" by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're looking to cash in on the "environmental windfall lottery",

    ... 390 people ...

    ... Relocation costs have been estimated at $400 million or more.

    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.

    1. Re:It's not "mis-targetted" by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they aren't living in igloos. They have rifles, snowmobiles, 4x4s, satellite tv, etc.

  4. simple really .... by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Funny



    cost per person to relocate inhabitants = $30,000
    cost per person to have lawyers sign moving agreement = $970,000

    going to law school and specializing in environmental law .. priceless

  5. re: The funny thing - Eskimo cars by z80kid · · Score: 5, Funny
    An Eskimo is driving when his car starts to make a noise. He takes it to the garage and the mechanic looks at it. "Hmm, looks like you've blown a seal."

    "No," says the Eskimo, "it's just frost on my mustache."

    ~~~
    (What the hell, I've got some karma to burn.)

  6. Re:But they are targeting everyone! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See also: Brilliant plan by Democrats, announced today, to tax the profits of the evil oil companies.

    Quite frankly, if I were an oil company, and had politicians getting elected promising to ram a pitchfork up my ass, all the while they claim they're gonna decimate oil with alternative fuels, I'd be dragging ass too in constructing new oil pipelines, infrastructure, refineries, and the like, when, if said politicians have their way, much of that new stuff'll be useless in a few years as oil use decreases and thus you cannot recoup your billions.

    Screw that government and the people that elect it. Raise prices!

    Do not mark this flamebait. This is a serious analysis. That it upsets you, well, read my .sig.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. Re:They'll be happy to know the Earth is Cooling by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A scientific consensus describes, not proscribes, the accumulated data & scientific theories. Read that again; descriptive, not proscriptive. Denying a consensus with nothing more than bluster and ad hominem retorts is a blatant denial of science. Provide relevant & complete evidence or you are no better than the creationists.