On 4/6/2018 11:02 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/6/2018 9:45 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/6/2018 8:08 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> But the question of whether a city can sue an oil company for climate
>>> change damage remains murky:
>> 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
> 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!