Judge Rules Big Oil Can't Be Sued For Climate Change Costs (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A U.S. judge who held a hearing about climate change that received widespread attention ruled Monday that Congress and the president were best suited to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming. So he threw out lawsuits that sought to hold big oil companies liable for the Earth's changing environment. Noting that the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, Judge William Alsup said questions about how to balance the "worldwide positives of the energy" against its role in global warming "demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," he said. Alsup's ruling came in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and neighboring Oakland that accused Chevron (CVX), Exxon Mobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP), BP (BP) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) of long knowing that fossil fuels posed serious risks to the environment, but still promoting them as environmentally responsible.

Comments

It make sense... However.

[jellomizer]

I think Big Oil needs to be punished for this misinformation campaign. Spreading the belief that Fossil Fuels are not causing global warming or global warming doesn't exist, also their effort to criticize alternative energy sources to prevent energy diversity is rather shady as well.

That said, Fossil Fuels offer a rather safe high density and portable energy source. Where failure of such companies to meet the demand for oil would also be harmful and criminal.
The Gasoline Automobile was considered an environmental friendly invention, at the time. Mostly due to the fact the pollution effect is less then the effect of having a lot of horses in a City, Needing food and cleaning, Attracting pests and plagues.

Alternate sources are getting close (I feel they would be closer if Big Oil didn't try to keep them down) to being as good as Fossil Fuels, Exceeding it in some areas, but behind in others. But I doubt we can truly get off Fossil Fuels, but we can be able to replace a lot of it.

Big Oil isn't the cause of climate change, it is the consumers who are.

The difference between Tobacco and Oil is that Tobacco doesn't have many or any real advantages other then for entertainment. So its harmful side effects which were hidden lied about and distorted (like what big oil had done) were not offset by its advantages.

Re: Lock Him Up

[kenh]

Your view of the world is 'interesting'.

You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.

You imagine that judges decide what sources are used to defend a particular side in a court case - that is left to the attorneys.

I like how you lump 'software professionals' with scientists - I'm going to guess you wanted to be a scientist, but wound up a software professional, so you viewcthem as equivalent.

Re:Big shocker.

[AlwinBarni]

The case is not reported adequately. The problem here is not that big oil companies have influenced climate (indeed, humanity benefited from the energy and plastics) - the problem is that they have known about their impact on climate for a while now and still kept spending resources to actively deny it and undermine research about it - similar to what happened with tobacco companies and health effects of smoking tobaccos. This fact, in my opinion, has enough merit for a trial.

It is futile though.

So you want jackasses to decide policy?

[raymorris]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

A. You think this judge is a jackass.

B. He's a jackass because he declined to unilaterally decide energy policy, instead leaving policy to policy-makers.

C. You would have preferred for the jackass judge to decide national energy policy himself.

Is that about right?

That is utterly false

[SuperKendall]

But you do know that people only exhale as much CO2 as the food they eat took from the atmosphere?

I don't tend to "know" things that are false.

CO2 exhalation is a result of a chemical process in our body, and has no relation whatsoever to the amount of whatever we consumed itself consuming CO2. I mean, how on earth to you square your insane belief system with someone on an all-meat diet, where a cow itself exhales CO2 and then we kill the cow and eat it and ourselves produce CO2 in turn? What about someone on an all-water diet for a week or two who continues to exhale CO2?

Talk about anti-science...

It is a zero sum game, or are you an complete idiot?

What I have found in life is that people who believe anything is a "zero-sum game" are the same kind of naive quacks that believe in crystal healing and perpetual motion machines...