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.
Because that example would reveal that the lawsuits are successful
Subways you have to push, Intersections with Traffic cops instead of lights, horse and buggies back on broad way along with an army of street cleaners to keep the, um, horse droppings picked up. And did I mention the smell of all the people w/o AC in the summer or water to shower with year round if they live above the 5th floor?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The American Petroleum Institute, in particular its members Exxon and Chevron, have been funding denial and manufacturing doubt ever since their own scientists told them of the risks of continued fossil fuel use back in the 80s (here is an empirical study describing their efforts to deny and deliberately misrepresent climate science findings, including from their own scientists).
And the reason fossil fuels appeared as cheap as they did was because the huge emission and pollution costs were being borne by the public, rather than the industry. If these externalised costs were factored in, the price of coal-fired electricity would triple (study) - and the RoI for investment in alternatives like renewables or nuclear would have been much larger. Likewise, the health and other external costs of oil exceeded $56 billion annually back in 2005, adding at least 23 to 38 cents per gallon (again without including climate costs).
External costs are a market failure. Regulation is one option to correct that failure, but it's not the only possible option. Feel free to choose a solution that fits your political preferences, but ignoring or hand-waving away the problem won't make it go away. You'll still be paying for it, with excessive health premiums, illnesses and lost productivity, and tens of thousands of avoidable deaths every year.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Car Drivers contribute to the harm, but will also pay for that harm, as economies collapse and bill for for mitigating further climate change and the bill for adapting the inevitable change all become due. So we will pay anyway. But will Oil Companies pay their share? And what constitutes that share?
Let's be clear: organisations and entities that actively seek or have sought to delay action on climate change have cost the rest of us dearly. In the case of oil companies, they knew the effects and cost of climate change form the beginning, but sought to mislead by creating the denialist movement, and sponsoring the likes of Judith Currie and Anthony Watts to be their mouthpiece. These originating entities, their mouthpieces (who at this point, are being deliberately misleading), and anyone else who profits from lying about climate should certainly be considered more culpable than someone who drives around minding their own business.
This obvious warming is hard observational fact, from land, sea, and satellite measurements all around the globe - not a model. Here is the dataset.
I guess reality itself must be alt-left.
I'm not sure we actually KNOW that the current warming trend is entirely man made
We know to a high level of scientific certainty. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests the world would still be slowly cooling, if it wasn't for our greenhouse gas emissions.
Given that the science behind this specific part of the question is far from conclusive
It absolutely is; that's why every scientific institution on the planet endorses the conclusion that we're causing the warming we're seeing. We can even quantify it - the IPCC AR5 WG1 summary says our emissions of CO2 alone have caused a radiative forcing of 1.68 W m^2 (+/- 0.3), plus another 0.97 W m^2 from methane - which dwarfs the cooling effects of atmospheric dust and nitrates at about -0.42 W m^2 in total. We know it's our CO2 that's causing it because a) we can easily measure the CO2 levels rising rapidly, and b) isotopic analysis shows a match with carbon from fossil fuels (not to mention the observed levels happen to agree nicely with our calculated emissions, and that nothing else has been observed that could come close to causing the effect we're seeing).
None of this attribution has anything to do with our land temperature models (which btw are working just fine).
What's still uncertain is exactly how much warming we'll see, and when. Not what's causing it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Russ R.
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”
Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”
So, if I’m going to nitpick details 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.
But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.
Also... https://www.theguardian.com/en...