Slashdot Mirror
NYC Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: New York City is seeking to lead the assault on both climate change and the Trump administration with a plan to divest $5 billion from fossil fuels and sue the world's most powerful oil companies over their contribution to dangerous global warming. City officials have set a goal of divesting New York's $189 billion pension funds from fossil fuel companies within five years in what they say would be "among the most significant divestment efforts in the world to date." Currently, New York City's five pension funds have about $5 billion in fossil fuel investments. New York state has already announced it is exploring how to divest from fossil fuels. New York's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, said that the city is taking the five fossil fuel firms -- BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell -- to federal court due to their contribution to climate change.
Court documents state that New York has suffered from flooding and erosion due to climate change and because of looming future threats it is seeking to "shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat." The court filing claims that just 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with the five targeted companies the largest contributors. The case will also point to evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public.
Court documents state that New York has suffered from flooding and erosion due to climate change and because of looming future threats it is seeking to "shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat." The court filing claims that just 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with the five targeted companies the largest contributors. The case will also point to evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public.
Tax dollars at work. Unless the armies of attorneys are doing the work for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
Better known as 318230.
Perhaps we should hold those burning fossil fuels responsible for doing so. The largest city in the world's worst polluting nation would be a good start. I propose that we sue New York City for their contributions to climate change.
The most damning part is we have their records showing they knew, then covered it up and CONTINUE TO LIE. Get a rope.
Distilleries and breweries have been the leading cause of liver change in my body
Like cases against tobacco companies, this one will take 50 years or more.
Even ONE of these companies has more cash on hand to fight this than NYC. Expect this to get tied up in court, until the heat death of the universe. Not saying that NYC might not be right, but this will be seen as a life or death fight. Probably, this might not be much more than a money grab, seeing as how NYC already taxes everything that moves (and quite a few that don't.) Going to be interesting, to say the least.
I'd want my money making money in all forms of investments, not just the ones the politicians feel are good for them.
BTW, why don't they outlaw gas and diesel cars from NYC? I mean it's a CO2 stinkhole there.
To combust fossil fuels, or not combust fossil fuels? That is the question— Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to cherish The Dollars and cents of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of electrical Tesla cars, And, by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep— No more—and by a sleep to say we end The heartache and the thousand natural shocks That environmentalism is heir to—’tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished! To die, to sleep. To sleep, perchance to make profit—ay, there’s the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this drilling site, Must give us pause. There’s the respect That makes dogshit of everybody's life.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
This is what you do when what you really want is an "oil tax" but know your already heavily-taxed citizens wouldn't stand for it. NYC would have a leg to stand on if, before filing a lawsuit, they banned all internal combustion cars in the city as well as turning off all petrochemical heating in the and all electricity from petrochemical sources. Until then, this is just a joke.
Organization? You must be joking..
York City's five pension funds have about $5 billion in fossil fuel investments.
So if NYC wins, do they also have to take responsibility for being a a co-conspirator? They did help the oil companies by financing what they were doing with $5 billion in just the pension funds alone. What other investments do/did they have with oil and coal I wonder? How much fossil fuel was, and still is used by NYC? Are they going to shut down all of the ports that oil burning ships dock at? What about all of the freight by diesel truck and trains? How about all of the stock brokers on Wall Street that deal with investments in oil and coal? They should go after them too.
I'm all for being responsible for the environment, but this is just stupid.
Still wondering why your taxes are so high???
lol
Unless you buy stock from an oil company as opposed to a third party, how can they profit from your 'investment'?
#freedumbs
Time to move above the 200 year flood levels Amerikuks!
Wrong. They'll settle this in 3-4 for less than it will cost to fix the pending apocalypse, (quadrillions) and then we'll all begin to suffer as an ecosystem over centuries until we're predominantly fungal and microflora in a toxic stew. Drain the swamp, indeed.
Wait, you guys did WHAT with that oil we sold you? Do you know how hard that crap is to get out of the ground and make nice and smooth?
Well I guess if you can't care for oil properly that means *no more oil for YOU*.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seriously wtf are they thinking?? No fossil fuel companies means that NYC would not be where it is today... simply put no fossil fuels no elevators (enjoy stairs do ya) or for fire equipment to stop those towered from burning up.. and that's just what I came up with without thinking about it...
Another DeBlasio fuck up. The city was a hell hole but that fucking Democrat really has done the worst job yet. Now he can blame it on climate change!
But hell why not clog up the courts with another fuckwad NY lawsuit. Asshole governor and AG have plenty going to grab as much cash as possible, now that they have fleeced their citizens of all available cash.
People are fleeing high tax NY in droves. It's a shithole and deserves to be underwater.
Gather 'round kids, watch the shills from both sides duke it out for our entertainment!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I assume since NYC is suing the oil companies, none of the politicians have driven a car, ridden a bus or used any kind of electricity that was produced from anything but clean energy.
Also, please make sure those windmills and solar panels were produced and delivered using clean-energy.
Don't get me wrong, I buy into clean energy, but come on...
You are so stupid you believed the fossil fuel companies instead of listening to the scientists. Well if you are getting money then the smartest thing to do is to total stupid. That is how irrationals win. First against tobacco companies and now against climate change. I would have never won against tobacco company but then I never smoke.
If DeBlasio really wanted to contribute to solving climate change, he's do something like put a $5/gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.
But in true Socialist fashion, he's making a grab for other people's money.
And in DeBlasio fashion, he's grandstanding in front of a camera.
Since oil companies are causing evil climate change and should be punished for it by NYC, the NYC would understand if evil oil companies stop selling oil/gas in NYC.
gearing up for a political run. Although it's possible this is an attempt to tie up some of the resources the oil companies use to lobby against attempts to address climate change.
Personally, if these sort of tactics are what it takes to get climate change addressed I say go for it. If you believe in science you believe in climate change. And unless you're really, really rich you're not going to be in any position to profit from ignoring it. You'll suffer with the rest of us as the price of food, drink, and everything else shoots up and wars break out because of it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
although staling until a favorable administration was in place did.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ok, stop selling any fuel within NYC. Lets stop this global warming. Lets see how much people want global warming when there is no gas to be found in NYC?
It would seem like a more likely way to get this done would be to simply institute an aggressive carbon tax for products sold/used in NY, both on domestic and international products.
Fuel is a product, so it would apply to gasoline. iPhones are a product, so it would apply to Apple. Samsung Galaxies are a product, so it would apply to Samsung.
Specifically suing the oil companies seems inappropriate, when these products are produced by international firms as well, that are not touched by the suit.
Cuz this sounds like something Gov Weed (Brown) would do.
Where to start? Here's a few off the top of my head:
1. Petrochemicals are not just used for fuel, they are used to make plastics, fertilizer, and other chemicals (and medicines) that make modern standards of living possible, and prop up the lifestyle of every single New Yorker, from limousine liberal Manhattanite to hipster-doofus Brooklynite and everyone in between.
2. Most CO2 come from burning coal, not oil, and not in Western countries.
3. As others point out, as admitted shareholders, NYC is suing itself here. Great use of taxpayer dollars.
4. Global warming is a hoax. Given the fervor of the lefties about it in recent months, I'm honestly starting to believe that even the science is a hoax, not just the politics of it. Really. Honest to God.
Good I hope they take the planet destroying a*holes to the cleaners. That industry has known since 1959 when that left wing loon Edward Teller told them that their product was likely to lead to climate change https://www.theguardian.com/en... and by implication millions of deaths and the destruction of large parts of the planet. Their response - carry on selling the poison.
Good luck with that.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Screw taking care of infrastructure and lets let people build in places that are known to flood. To hell with responsible civic projects, lets build shit that is going to be a maintenance nightmare that we can't afford to keep up and and then we'll blame someone else for our stupidity and sue em. The brilliance of bureaucrats.
Flooding and erosion? Maybe Australia and New Zealand can sue for all the skin cancer?
Will these big companies be able to sue NYC for the profits it had over the years thanks to technological development driven by these companies or will the residents be able to sue for the taxes NYC collected all these years without tending to the well-known erosion and flooding issues that have targeted the city for the last 40 years.
The city allowed significant development below the sea level and its land has been well known to be sinking for centuries, you can find news reports back to the 1820's about the situation that NYC is in.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Other than all the other obvious social engineering comments about going after oil companies rather than people who burn the fuel, I'm also annoyed by the whole divestiture thing.
Who are the oil companies? The guys on the oil rigs? The executives? Or the stockholders? If New York has all these funds that are invested in petroleum companies, wouldn't it make them the owners?
Selling your stock before a big lawsuit ? If they are the owners of the companies they are suing, I'd love to see a court insist they hold onto the stock until the conclusion of the suit. If for some inexplicable reason they win a big settlement it would likely drive down the value of the stock they hold in those companies. Seems fair to me.
I assume since NYC is suing the oil companies, none of the politicians have driven a car, ridden a bus or used any kind of electricity that was produced from anything but clean energy.
They most likely have. Probably why the argument that the fossil fuel companies committed egregious offenses to induce them to do so is PART of the lawsuit. They're saying "If not for your action here, then our action there" would not have occurred.
Also, please make sure those windmills and solar panels were produced and delivered using clean-energy.
They're working on it! They'd be a lot further along if not for the actions of the aforementioned to deter said actions being completed.
Don't get me wrong, I buy into clean energy, but come on...
And maybe you should consider a less facetious response. The fact is, despite all the sputtering protests, liability is not always determined by a single act of fault, but often weighed and measured based on actions taken. Or actions not taken.
No matter how many people screech their indignation, because the people of New York City dared not be perfect saints themselves, it won't change the responsibilities of others for their actions.
Like for example, the situation of Swaustistic and his actions. He's responsible for his actions. So is the officer who shot an innocent man. Now maybe that officer can argue that he was behaving appropriately, but whether he was or wasn't, doesn't make the swatter who made a fraudulent call any less culpable for his own crimes. (In fact, even if the officer had been coked up and hallucinating, the swatter would still be responsible. Lying creates a depraved heart.)
Believe it or not, people can discern among the participants of a situation, and find more than one of them guilty, and some of them as in more need of taking rehabilitatory action.
This is publicity whoring for Cuomo. He'll be announcing his candidacy for President in a few weeks. Expect plenty more of the same over the next couple of years.
For the garbage, smog and horrible amount of concrete. No natural environments and waste...
It's a duality of assholery, either way.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Trying to prove oil is responsible for the climate change . . .
NYC is just mad that they cannot take their residents' federal taxes for their local budget anymore.
IT seems in 2018 it's April 1st everyday !!
We all should sue Bill de Blasio, mayor of NYC for being a waster of good oxygen while outputting CO2. Tim S.
This sounds like politics not law. I doubt they cannot be liable for environmental damages if they were following the environmental regulations. If anything, NYC is liable for not setting sufficient environmental laws to prevent the damage. There is definitely precedent for regulatory bodies to be sued if they knew their regulations were not sufficient. This sounds similar to how a boat captain cannot be sued for mishaps so long as the ship was up to standards and the captain didn't do anything negligent. Basically: If you followed the regulations, you are not liable. Even stranger is that, of course, since CO2 build-up in NYC can happen because of fossil fuels burnt in London, the entire case is completely out the window.
As for the whole divestment thing, that's done all the time and isn't even newsworthy. That's the other reason I suspect someone is just starting an early re-election campaign.
No wonder so many people are leaving that libtard state full of illegals.
HEY
Let's make the JUDICIAL system LEGISLATE scientific opinion
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
NYC, if you're seriously concerned about global warming due to use of fossil fuels, disconnect all the electric lines going into the city if the power source is driven by fossil fuels, then prevent the sale, use, or transportation of fossil fuels within the city. If you don't stop the consumption of fossil fuels, then you are nothing but slimy hypocrites trying to engender favorable press coverage for political advantage.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
"evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public" That's pretty much it. If they knew that their product was doing damage and they worked to suppress this information then that's what they are culpable for. Actually mining and delivery a product that we demanded and paid for ... that's not the kind of thing you sue someone for. But if you sell me something and lie to me in the process, it's the lie that gets you in trouble.
I feel there are questionable elements to the current research on man induced climate change (not to mention there are sooo many other forms of pollution that are way worse that we really need to stop. There's a toxic lake in China where byproduced are dumped from manufacturing all of our cheap crap).
However, I'm for this if they use the god damn money to fix their crumbling rail infrastructure. Penn Station needs to be completely renovated, and the subways are in desperate need of maintenance. But knowing the city officials in terribly corrupt cities like NYC, I'm sure it will all go into the pockets of big money contractors and fat cats.
Just outlaw all gasoline and diesel sales in New York State. Problem solved. It would fix that, and them.
hooray for New York!
NY isn't suing the "oil companies". Saudi Aramco is 20 times larger than Exxon and far larger than all the ones Americans know the names of combined.
So let's be real. NY isn't suing the "oil companies", it is suing the oil companies that are easily sued in American courts.
So this is a practical joke.
It would be like suing tobacco companies and not suing Marlboro.
What's next, lawsuits against XM for destruction of the luminiferous aether?
Or maybe a suit against a logging company for destroying the habitats of unicorns?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Given that one of the biggest environmental disaster in the world is caused by the production of electronics, they should sue Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, etc...
The sludge lake in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, is where the rare earth minerals are extracted for the electronics we use, and the environmental impact can be seen from space (using Google Maps).
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
I think the way we prevent future impacts to our environment, is to properly test technologies while in development before letting them out into the wild. Followed by a way to track their environmental impacts after they do go into the wild.
I guess the appropriate reaction from the defendants if to stop the infringing action immediately. No more oil or related products should be sold to/in NYC starting right now :D
Another laughable article from 'Climatedot' - every single day. Why not just rename the site 'Climatedot' and have done with it?
There is no such thing as 'Catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why they renamed it 'climate change'.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Instead of pouring money into this silly exercise, how about fixing a real problem:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-10/the-most-awful-transit-center-in-america-could-get-unimaginably-worse
In most parts of the world, when people or communities expose gas, coil or oil companies (and Coca-Cola) abuses most of them just "disappears"; I heard that in the USA people can get some money but have to let the abuse keep on, I want to see how this unfolds (I doubt they win but I hope they at least get a precedent).
There is no question that NYC must lose this case. Even if 100% of the predictions are true, companies which extract natural resources and process them to make them available to be used are not the ones responsible for their use. NYC *can* (for example) make it illegal to drive any gasoline-powered cars, but it doesn't.
Providing a legal product in full compliance with the law cannot make anyone liable. At least, not by the traditional definition of what it means to be liable. What makes this case even more ludicrous is that NY as well as most states already impose excise tax which is meant to compensate the locality for the externalities of using this resource. So the companies legally extract resources, legally process resources, legally sell resources, and collect excise tax (on behalf of the government) to compensate the government for the cost of externalities.
If the state or city want to increase the level at which they are compensated for the cost of externalities, it is dishonest to claim that the companies do anything untowardly. The honest thing to do is to increase the tax on gasoline. But the politicians are more concerned about their careers than they are about honestly compensating their constituents. So they are attempting to use the courts to punish the innocent. It's not a question of whether NYC should lose.
The only question is whether the city should compensate the companies legal fees or if the suit should be treated as fraud and the companies' legal fees should be compensated at treble the amount (as often happens in the case of fraud).
Great idea, global warming theorists should stop their hypocrisy, I cut my carbon emissions, got a hybrid, led lights, solar hot water etc, but the people preaching to us don't seem to care about their own carbon emissions, living in mansions, multiple cars, private jets holiday homes.
There are many ways to offset the pollution.
Agreed though not all of them are politically viable. The likely best way would be a significant global tax on all carbon and other emissions from burning fossil fuels. But that probably won't happen. Cap and trade is another option but not as good as a tax. Lawsuits are a third option which might be among the most politically viable just because it doesn't require widespread agreement. Regulations limiting emissions and increasing efficiency standards are another but are less effective than a tax in many cases and expensive to enforce. And technology changes like electric vehicles can also make a big impact.
Why sue gas company instead of the car owner burning the gas?
For the same reason you don't waste money trying to put someone in jail for smoking a joint. It's wasteful and doesn't solve the problem to go after the end user when it is the dealer that matters. The gas company is the one with the money and they are the source of the problem. They lied (and continue to lie) about their research into the problem of climate change and because they are the ones reaping monstrous profits in significant part by dumping massive amounts of CO2 and various pollutants into the atmosphere free of charge. Right now fossil fuel companies do not have to pay for the full cost of the pollution they generate effectively providing them a subsidy to the tune of literally trillions of dollars annually across the globe. A subsidy we pay through various health problems, environmental damage, and the effects of climate change. There are numerous ways this de-facto subsidy could be ended and lawsuits like this are among the options. Maybe not the best option but it might be the best available option.
Basically it's kind of a version of suing tobacco companies for the health problems and associated costs their products cause. And the fossil fuel industry lies about the negative impact of their products to protect their profits just like the tobacco companies did (and do) to protect their profits.
Make no sense, this is just further bizarre social justice
No, it's recouping the cost to the rest of us for the pollution they create. You talk about wanting people to pay for the problems they cause as if it is somehow a bad thing.
NYC should do its part as well and stop yellow cabs driving around aimlessly in anticipation of customers. Have distributed waiting areas for the taxis to park and a means to call a cab that shows up at the street corner a few minutes later. That will not only minimize the waste of gas, but also reduce traffic, and reduce the fine dust emissions from exhaust and rubber tires hitting crappy roads.
So do I get to sue Barak Obama and the DNC because my health premiums didn't go down by an average of $2400 a year?
Are these not the same idiots who ferry there garbage (plastic and all) out to the ocean and dump it?
Says the addict who probably still stops to fill up their car several times a month.
Do you have a better option for transportation than subsidized fossil fuel powered vehicles? No you do not. And why do we only have the one option? Because we subsidize fossil fuels directly to the tune of around $5 trillion per year globally and considerably more indirectly in the pollution we allow to be emitted without cost.
You know climate change is real, but you still have a gas powered car, burn natural gas to heat your home and probably to cook with, and chances are good the electricity you are using to type comments on Slashdot doesn't come from solar or wind...
Grow up. What I do individually doesn't make any meaningful difference. At all. The only way to fight climate change in a meaningful way is with regulations at the nation state level. You pretend otherwise at all of our peril. Your lame attempt to paint me as a hypocrite might have some bite if there was actually another realistic option beside subsidized fossil fuels. Solar only seems expensive because coal and gas don't have to pay for the pollution they cause. Seriously smart guy, explain to me how we transition the general public off of fossil fuel power without taxing the heck out of it and removing both direct and indirect subsidies.
Oh and for the record I actually do have solar panels on my house, I pay for renewable generated power on my electric bill and my wife drives a hybrid that requires zero gas for her daily commute. As soon as there is an option that makes sense I will happily drop my daily driver for an EV. I've replaced every light bulb in my house with LEDs, my water heater is tankless so I don't burn gas needlessly, and I have recently installed a high efficiency furnace and upgraded insulation. While I recognize that none of this will move the needle on climate change, I'm doing my part anyway. And in some cases it actually saves me money which is a nice bonus.
Hey look, the lynwood liar is at it again. Many countries met their targets.
And as already pointed out, the article doesn't match what you claim anyway...
You can't sue a company for misuse of its products.
...of liberalism. It really needs to relocate to California so it can slide into the Pacific along with the rest of the limousine liberals.
The oil companies should pull ALL of their product from NY.
Tell them to contact their elected officials.
When the New Yawkers are stuck no gas in their cars and no oil in the heaters, maybe some sense will come to them.
Make sure Con Ed is also deprived of the polluting substances.
It could be a long, cold, dark winter with no cash grab in sight.
Until then it is a legal activity.
Taking tax breaks that are available to all companies is not a subsidy. You are delusional and outing your condition on slashdot.
In days past fabricating a yarn for the purpose of pulling the wool over people's eyes was looked down upon and in many cases criminal. Today they spin the Climate Change yarn with no real evidence or proof and now they sue for it. I'd been told all these years that progressives are open to debate and hold freedom of speech in high regard. Well, their actions speak louder than their words... If you agree with them that's terrific, if you don't, you're getting sued over suits against their made up science of Global Warming/Cooling (whatever the term de jure). Nice
Problem solved. Let's see how long NYC will last without cars.
Are they going to sue car drivers too?
Oil companies should just impose a $5 a gallon NY fee on all gasoline and heating oil sold in NYC to help pay for this lawsuit. Problem solved. The residents caused this problem, let them pay for it, pure and simple.
It wasn't the oil companies that burned the fuel to pollute the air, it was the vehicle operators
This is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths, or ammunition manufacturers to be specific, rather than the person that pulled the trigger.
This is like holding fast-food restaurants responsible for their customer's obesity, rather than blame the customer that repeatedly made a poor diet choice.
Why not just take the billions you want from the oil companies, divide it by the number of legally registered cars and trucks in the state of New York and make a one-time assessment of each driver of their fair share?
Ken
What you need to do is...
1. Avoid all modes of transportation that uses fossil fuel in any form. Be sure you aren't using Coal or Gas generated electricity for that car.
2. Turn off your heating system.
3. Stop using your computer (and spare us all your infantile stupidity).
4. Stop buying food at the supermarket unless it's brought in by non-fossil fuels modes of transportation and wasn't grow or harvested with the aid of any mechanical device powered by same.
5. Forget about AC in the summer.
6. Hospitals? No Fucking way. Forget any modern medicine. Sorry, it's mud and leaves for you, bitch.
7. So much there stuff I can't even fit it all in here.
Oil and its derivatives is the reason you can be such a whiny, cock sucking, shit eating, ignorant, mother fucking, SJW asshole.
Load your car with gasoline, and drive it into a wall. Be sure to scream like the little pig you are as you burn to death. Let us all know just before so we can celebrate.
First they ignore the coal industry, the burning of community trash as well as oil companies that exist in other parts of the world. And then we have the auto companies whose cars and trucks pollute us constantly. So how does a fair judge assign a certain degree of liability when the wrong doers include almost all industry et.?
... the Republicans control all three branches of the federal government and most state legislatures and governors' mansions. The Democrats have gone completely bat-shit insane.
What's next? Breathing emits carbon-dioxide. People who breath are knowingly damaging the environment. Shouldn't they be sued as well? Maybe just force them to stop breathing?
You want to divest your portfolio of fossil fuel based businesses, stop using fossil fuels, ban cars, etc. then go for it. Lead by example, with humility, and you might just change things for the better.
But, for the love of god, stop the smug, sanctimonious, arrogance that achieves nothing other than the fluffing of our own egos and the garnering of the contempt of those very people whose minds you are trying to change.
Does NYC prefer that no product of oil companies reach NYC? If they are suing the Oil companies for providing their product, does that mean the NYC politicians are unequivocally against those products being sold in NYC? So if no gasoline was available in NYC, that would see it as an improvement? Yes, I get that they are suing to recoup externalities, but that's already recouped through tax. They can increase the tax if they think it doesn't recoup the externalities fully. If they are suing, that mean they have to allege that something untowardly has taken place. Which means that they would be Ok with having Oil companies exit the NYC market. Are they? Really? Ironically, the aftermath of hurricane Sandy (when most gas stations in NY/NJ area were off line) would be a nice preview of what would happen.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Democrats are complaining that Trump is nuts, but this is perfect evidence that NYC Democrats are nuts.
Oil companies should say "Ok, you're absolutely right. From now on, we will not bring any petroleum or petroleum products into NYC."
If I manufacture a product the use of which does harm not just to me, but the entire ecosystem of the planet and all civilizations, and I then knowingly and willingly try to misrepresent or hide the damage it's doing to further my own profit, that's deceitful and damaging to everyone. and it's definitely something that one should get sued over.
One should not get sued over that. One should be imprisoned over that.It is knowingly committing fraud, and technically conspiracy to commit manslaughter, as climate change on the scale we are seeing is going to directly lead to a non-zero number of deaths. (manslaughter, as murder is usually reserved for death with intent, but manslaughter is more typically applied to negligent death cases).
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The better target of vindictive lawsuits would be to sue those who did unlawful acts instead of legal acts in years past. Sue the drug pushers and smugglers for reparations for addiction instead. The last time I looked; it was not lawful to make something illegal and apply it retroactively. Or do these high dollar attorneys in NYC see a cash cow of public outrage to milk over an issue that is another nothing burger but lucrative to tie up in court for decades?
NRRPT/RCT
ICOADS Release 3.0 (R3.0) was completed in June 2016 with data covering 1662-2014, plus preliminary data and products for 2015-present in near-real-time.
Data to suit your needs is not science. One of the many, many complaints I have with Climate Science. Of course many believe that if you don't believe in Climate Change, what ever that implies, than you are not a scientist. Bill Nye believes that AGW has forestalled the next Ice Age. Why he still thinks AGW is bad is just part of what makes him and Al such great spokes models.
And who is going to sue the Sun for it's contribution?
Representing "NYC" will be the lawyer from Idiocracy.
That movie is downright prophetic, and it's happening 500 years early. This kind of shit is a prime example.
Versus when others chose to divest portfolios: Harvard University activists were an early proponent of divesting from companies associated with fossil fuels, but the wheels of change moved so slowly, the legendary portfolio actually lost money from fallling oil prices before the pressure to sell off these assets reached a crescendo.
After finally winning the divestment prompted the sell off of petroleum and coal assets at a time of market downturn.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway