PowerSwitch

Charleston, SC Becomes First City in U.S. South to Sue Big Oil for Climate Costs
https://www.ecowatch.com/charleston-cli ... 71485.html

The city of Charleston, South Carolina made history Wednesday when it became the first in the U.S. South to sue the fossil fuel industry for damages caused by the climate crisis. The city sued 24 oil and pipeline companies, including major players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, The Post and Courier reported. The lawsuit contends that the companies knew that their products were heating the global climate but denied the fact in public. It further seeks to charge them for the costs of protecting Charleston from increased flooding and extreme weather events.

"As this lawsuit shows, these companies have known for more than 50 years that their products were going to cause the worst flooding the world has seen since Noah built the Ark," Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg said during a press conference announcing the suit, as Live 5 News reported. "And instead of warning us, they covered up the truth and turned our flooding problems into their profits. That was wrong, and this lawsuit is all about holding them accountable for that multi-decade campaign of deception."

Continues.....

So the externalities are finally being taxed, assuming of course that the city wins. I'm surprised it's taken this long.

Think of the legal team the city can put together to fight this battle then of the one Exxon and the other defendants will bring to bear. They will have judge and jury convinced it is all the fault of the citizens and government of the city for buying all those fossil fuel products and demanding that the corporations provide them. They will be lucky to not end up paying the oil companies back their legal fees plus damages.

vtsnowedin wrote:Think of the legal team the city can put together to fight this battle then of the one Exxon and the other defendants will bring to bear. They will have judge and jury convinced it is all the fault of the citizens and government of the city for buying all those fossil fuel products and demanding that the corporations provide them. They will be lucky to not end up paying the oil companies back their legal fees plus damages.

And therein lies the problem.
Capitalism has created these corporate monoliths that are way more powerful than most countries/states, so they can pretty much do what they want.
If the elected representatives can't do anything, then the only avenues left are to boycott the products (drop in the ocean) or direct action (XR and the like).

VT - with the South going under water and the West Coast going up in smoke, do you sense any 'awakening' in the general population yet ?
Or still just those directly impacted ?

Mark wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:Think of the legal team the city can put together to fight this battle then of the one Exxon and the other defendants will bring to bear. They will have judge and jury convinced it is all the fault of the citizens and government of the city for buying all those fossil fuel products and demanding that the corporations provide them. They will be lucky to not end up paying the oil companies back their legal fees plus damages.

And therein lies the problem.
Capitalism has created these corporate monoliths that are way more powerful than most countries/states, so they can pretty much do what they want.
If the elected representatives can't do anything, then the only avenues left are to boycott the products (drop in the ocean) or direct action (XR and the like).

VT - with the South going under water and the West Coast going up in smoke, do you sense any 'awakening' in the general population yet ?
Or still just those directly impacted ?

I believe there is now a solid majority that believes the climate is changing. the bigger divide is just what to do about it and at what cost. The Vermont legislature just passed an ambitious emissions reduction bill . It sets goals of reducing emissions from 1990 levels by 40% in 2030 and 80% in 2050.
A sticking point is a provision to allow individuals to sue the state if it fails to meet intermediate goals like the target of 26% reduction from the 2005 level by 2025. The governor may well veto it over that but the passage margin in the Democrat legislature is sufficient to override his veto. The problem in meeting that goal is the state has no big industrial coal burners to switch off and transportation and home heating are the major components of our emissions with transportation amounting to 43% of the total.
Regionally there are plans to raise fuel taxes to promote EVs and I would not be surprised to see considerable subside increases for EVs and solar panel installations. A vigorous home insulation and fuel switch program is also envisioned.
That all sounds nice but the state is currently 200 million in the hole from Covid-19 and this bill contains no money other then board member salaries.

vtsnowedin wrote:I believe there is now a solid majority that believes the climate is changing. the bigger divide is just what to do about it and at what cost. The Vermont legislature just passed an ambitious emissions reduction bill . It sets goals of reducing emissions from 1990 levels by 40% in 2030 and 80% in 2050.
A sticking point is a provision to allow individuals to sue the state if it fails to meet intermediate goals like the target of 26% reduction from the 2005 level by 2025. The governor may well veto it over that but the passage margin in the Democrat legislature is sufficient to override his veto. The problem in meeting that goal is the state has no big industrial coal burners to switch off and transportation and home heating are the major components of our emissions with transportation amounting to 43% of the total.
Regionally there are plans to raise fuel taxes to promote EVs and I would not be surprised to see considerable subside increases for EVs and solar panel installations. A vigorous home insulation and fuel switch program is also envisioned.
That all sounds nice but the state is currently 200 million in the hole from Covid-19 and this bill contains no money other then board member salaries.

Very late in the day, but that sounds like a small step in the right direction.
Vermont is one of the smallest States - are similar moves happening in the the bigger ones ?
Hear that Trump is still blaming the fires on poor forestry management....
You need a massive change of direction in November....

Mark wrote:......................Hear that Trump is still blaming the fires on poor forestry management....

And half of those are on federal land apparently so back to Trump!