Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

srican69

(1,426 posts)
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:38 PM Mar 2014

should the people adversely affected by Global Warming ( Maldives, Bangladesh etc) have the right to

sue energy companies for damages?


If I am a farmer facing eviction because of rising sea levels -- and some humans in other countries were responsible for it - then I would want to be compensated by those humans.


Agree? Disagree?

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
1. why "energy companies"? Why not governments?
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:41 PM
Mar 2014
"The American way of life is not negotiable." - George HW Bush, 1990 (on the USA's refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol for limiting CO²).
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
8. Sorry, but you don't get the benefits without the consequences.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:52 PM
Mar 2014

And government policies favouring coal and oil are more directly responsible than anything else. If the US government had set strict emissions standards and MPG standards and imposed higher taxes on fossil fuels 25 years ago? The situation with regard to climate change might be somewhat better than it is now.

RedCloud

(9,230 posts)
2. That's exactly right.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:45 PM
Mar 2014

And the Koch bros should be court ordered to live right on top of their Keystone Pipeline of Demarcation.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
10. They need to do no more than sue the US gevernment
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:03 PM
Mar 2014

for not blocking the problem in the past.

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

pampango

(24,692 posts)
11. Some say that Americans should not be forced to comply with judgements of non-American institutions.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:04 PM
Mar 2014

I would hope that international environmental treaties would set up multilateral institutions that could hear and rule on such cases.

Energy companies have a lot of clout in national governments, so having lawsuits like this tried in national (American, Chinese, etc.) courts might not be a fair way to see these poor farmers get fair compensation.

hunter

(38,316 posts)
14. Some system needs to be set up to relocate refugees of climate change.
Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:46 PM
Mar 2014

Even here in the U.S.A..

Mechanisms need to be set up for abandoning and recycling properties threatened by the sea before they ground up into garbage by storm surges and such.

Most likely we won't do anything and eventually the climate refugee problems will become overwhelming.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»should the people adverse...