Discussion:
Chevron just agreed in court that humans cause climate change
Add Reply
kensi
2018-04-06 13:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But the question of whether a city can sue an oil company for climate
change damage remains murky:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-04-06 13:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
But the question of whether a city can sue an oil company for climate
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
read the WHOLE article pupa,

"Another key point Boutrous made was that these human-sourced greenhouse
gas emissions are *due to growing wealth and development*, of which
fossil fuel combustion is a symptom, *not a cause*. “Anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era,
driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher
than ever,” the IPCC reported in 2014.

“It’s just a facet of human existence,” Boutrous told Vox. “It’s an
issue for policymakers to address.”

"Coastal flooding in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is also a
function of local conditions which is land subsidence".

"Holding oil companies liable for producing fossil fuels would also open
up cities to liability for building roads and facilitating travel with
vehicles that burn those fuels, and governments for allowing sales of
vehicles that burn these fuels. Most Cars and Trucks would then be banned."
benj
2018-04-06 16:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
But the question of whether a city can sue an oil company for climate
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
read the WHOLE article pupa,
"Another key point Boutrous made was that these human-sourced greenhouse
gas emissions are *due to growing wealth and development*, of which
fossil fuel combustion is a symptom, *not a cause*. “Anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era,
driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher
than ever,” the IPCC reported in 2014.
“It’s just a facet of human existence,” Boutrous told Vox. “It’s an
issue for policymakers to address.”
"Coastal flooding in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is also a
function of local conditions which is land subsidence".
"Holding oil companies liable for producing fossil fuels would also open
up cities to liability for building roads and facilitating travel with
vehicles that burn those fuels, and governments for allowing sales of
vehicles that burn these fuels. Most Cars and Trucks would then be banned."
Most cars and trucks banned? Cities (actually money comes from
residents) paying big money for libs to waste on nonsense? Isn't this
EXACTLY the agenda the wormballers are pushing? They are WINNING again!
Sergio
2018-04-06 17:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by kensi
But the question of whether a city can sue an oil company for climate
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
           read the WHOLE article pupa,
"Another key point Boutrous made was that these human-sourced greenhouse
gas emissions are *due to growing wealth and development*, of which
fossil fuel combustion is a symptom, *not a cause*. “Anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era,
driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher
than ever,” the IPCC reported in 2014.
“It’s just a facet of human existence,” Boutrous told Vox. “It’s an
issue for policymakers to address.”
"Coastal flooding in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is also a
function of local conditions which is land subsidence".
"Holding oil companies liable for producing fossil fuels would also open
up cities to liability for building roads and facilitating travel with
vehicles that burn those fuels, and governments for allowing sales of
vehicles that burn these fuels. Most Cars and Trucks would then be banned."
Most cars and trucks banned? Cities (actually money comes from
residents) paying big money for libs to waste on nonsense? Isn't this
EXACTLY the agenda the wormballers are pushing? They are WINNING again!
well, there was zero global worming, in the middle ages, and no cars or
trucks either. Carts, horses, paths, cheese, that is the way it used to
be. Just think of a New World without Wallmart, or China stuff, or
Wallgreens, no Sears, all a green New World ! no electricity, no ready
made tools, no gasoline, no air conditioning, no internet... wait a min!
Loading...