Can You Sue a Company for CO2 Emissions?

[Opus_723]

The question in Kitzmiller was whether or not intelligent design was an inherently religious theory, or a secular and/or scientific one. On the basis of the evidence, the judge decided that it was dogmatic. He did not grant plaintiffs motion on the basis that ID was "flawed" or "wrong", but that it violated the establishment clause.

My point was that the judge was able to decide that it WAS a religious theory, even though there is a lot of debate over that, and the legislature did not guide this decision. Similarly, a judge should be able to weigh the evidence and decide that fossil fuel emissions are distinct from cellular respiration emissions in their contribution to climate change.

Such a claim could not be made. CO2 once emitted is diffused into the atmosphere, and the functional effect on crop yields is poorly understood. No one could geographically link emissions from company x to specific crop failures on agrilcutral plot y.

If no other CO2 were being emitted, the defendant's CO2 would still warm the planet by the same amount. No geographical link is necessary.

Please don't confuse the defendants opinion with that of the court. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court affirms the arguments, but doesn't issue an opinion on the facts (which are assumed true in pre-trial hearing).

Not sure what you mean here. I've read the whole thing now, and the summary I read was indicative of the ruling.

Irrelevant. No matter how clear the causal distinction may be to you, firms cannot reasonably be expected to know this and inform their decisions given it. They rightly look to the legislature for guidance on conduct where the potential for harm is not reasonably obvious and apparent to an informed layman. There is no such guidance on this subject.

"Reasonably" is very subjective. Like I said about the Kitzmiller case, a court managed to make a very important distinction without guidance, because it was reasonably obvious that the distinction was valid. The judge did not need Congress to make a law saying that ID was a religion.

In this case, yes. Plaintiffs were alleging general harm. Courts would have to weigh the general benefit against the general harm when determining whether or not society, generally, would accept one for the other, again unless the legislature gives specific guidance. This is partly why you cannot sue car manufacturers just because cars kill people, even when used correctly - the risk of death is general to society, not the result of specific defect or neglience, and outweighed by their benefits.

There is no negligence on the part of the automaker. They sell a product and people use it. CO2 is not the product here, it is a waste material that the power company disposes of. It is the company's responsibility. Their irresponsible disposal of that waste is a specific negligence.

If there is a continuous marginal relationship between a one unit change in CO2 emissions and monetary damages to crop yields, then everyone, everywhere would have some finite X% liability. This is absurd.

This is fair. The company pays the full cost of their pollution. Just because it may be unappealing to some doesn't make it wrong.

Gah. This is turning into a quote war. Sorry, mods.

 

[JaredJames]

Opus, you're ignoring basic legal framework here.

Why even bother to come and ask if you're going to brush off the entire legal system?

Let's just point out how ridiculous it is:

The consumer wants electricity, so the company provides it by burning coal. The consumer then gets annoyed because it may be contributing to affecting their business. They sue the power company for burning coal. They then continue to demand electricity.

Absolute non-sense.

The consumer either doesn't have electricity or finds another means of producing it. The company simply went with demand via the cheapest - and a perfectly legal means.

If the consumer hadn't wanted electricity in the first place, the company wouldn't have been producing it and so no emissions made and hence no effect on the business.

This is how supply and demand works. This is the entire basis of selling products. If there's no demand, you don't produce it. In this respect, you can trace the cause all the way back to the consumer. As such, the only people I see as having a valid case here would be the Amish.

 

[Opus_723]

But the demand was for electricity. No one forced the companies to provide it by burning coal. Nobody forced the company to make electricity at all. The company meets demand voluntarily, in order to profit.

If the company sold electricity under the condition, by contract, that they might damage your property with it's production, then that would be fair: to their customers. That still doesn't give them to right to damage another person's property, who never bought electricity from them. Someone might buy electricity from one company that emits CO2, but that doesn't give every company in the country permission to damage their property.

 

[JaredJames]

But the demand was for electricity. No one forced the companies to provide it by burning coal. Nobody forced the company to make electricity at all. The company meets demand voluntarily, in order to profit.

If the company sold electricity under the condition, by contract, that they might damage my property with it's production, then that would be fair: to their customers. That still doesn't give them to right to damage another person's property, who never bought electricity from them. Someone might buy electricity from one company that emits CO2, but that doesn't give every company in the country permission to damage their property.

Cut the crap, you don't decide which plant provides you with electric. Or at least the average consumer doesn't - you have to put a lot of effort and generally money into that, far beyond the average consumer.

I'd also note that renewables aren't always available and hydro aside, aren't consistent. So they are effectively useless in the long term so far as supply goes. So yes, (re bolded) they are forced to use coal, oil, gas or nuclear.

So on the basis of your argument, I can sue you for driving your car and producing CO2. It's plain ridiculous.

Whether you like it or not, the coal, oil, gas and nuclear are the best sources of energy and at the moment the only things able to meet the demand.

Your whole premise is "they provide me with electric - which I couldn't live without* - and now I'm annoyed that to do that there's a downside".

* Our lives revolve around electricity and it's not something we can do without. The irony is that you are sat here complaining, with the odds being that it is using electric produced via means you are attacking.

As an additional, these sources are not illegal in any way. They are the cheapest means to provide electric. So there are two options to the consumer - either they (the consumer) foot the bill for renewables and accept the inconsistencies with supply, or they go with the cheap option which is to allow the use of the four above and accept the minor downside.

By taking out a contract for supply from a company using those four, knowing full well that they use those four, you are accepting the emissions.

I'd support your premise if there were valid alternatives, but there are not. It's as simple as that. You either have electric with emissions or you don't have electric and go back to the dark ages.

 

[Opus_723]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

As I said, it's arguable that by buying electricity from a comapny, I am accepting the damage. You may be right there. That does not mean I consent to damage from every other company in the world that I am not a customer of.

I never said that emissions need to go away. But a company should be liable for the damage they cause, if it is not consented to.

 

[JaredJames]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

1. Prove who did what damage and that said damage is a direct result of negligence / secrecy by the company in question - impossible.

2. How many people don't have electricity? It is only those without electric that have a valid claim assuming they can prove the above. A consumer would have to prove they are completely unaware that coal, oil, gas or nuclear* are used in power production.

* I'm leaving nuclear in the arguments as there is waste with it and it is pollution, so I think it's a valid consideration given the topic being discussed.

I never said that emissions need to go away. But a company should be liable for the damage they cause, if it is not consented to.

You consent to it when you agree to buy electric from them via those means.

If you don't have an electric supply (or produce your own), the above applies.

Your whole premise is flawed. Can you not understand what I've outlined in previous posts? It's not some simple argument like you're making out. It is impossible to assign blame, that would stand up in a court of law.

 

[Opus_723]

1. Very hard, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm assuming that the person could provide evidence for now. I'm mostly bothered by the claim that they don't have the right to sue the company in the first place.

2. No, they would only have to prove that they're not a customer of the company in question. Therefore they never consented to the damage.

Also, nuclear only affects me if radiation affects my property. In which case I'd sue. If they dispose of the waste in a way that doesn't affect me, then there's no problem.

 

[JaredJames]

1. Very hard, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm assuming that the person could provide evidence for now. I'm mostly bothered by the claim that they don't have the right to sue the company in the first place.

Bad assumption. It doesn't follow reality.

2. No, they would only have to prove that they're not a customer of the company in question. Therefore they never consented to the damage.

You are blissfully unaware of how power production works aren't you.

There isn't some wonderful selection of what types of production can be used all over the states / UK etc. You have the production that can be supplied cheaply and meet demand.

As previous, outside of coal, oil, gas and nuclear, nothing else can meet demand. So either you provide a valid alternative - that is equally as legal as the above and cheaper - or you have to accept it.

Also, nuclear only affects me if radiation affects my property. In which case I'd sue. If they dispose of the waste in a way that doesn't affect me, then there's no problem.

Prove that a coal plant has directly caused damage to you and it came down to negligence or secrecy. Then prove you don't get your power from that plant (or one producing equal emissions). Then prove you have never used a plant producing emissions. Then explain why you moved near a plant producing emissions to damage your property. Let's face it, if you move next door to a plant you know full well is producing emissions, you're accepting what goes with it.

I hate people who want to sue over every little thing. Frankly, you're just looking for an easy pay out here over a non-sense case which would never make it to court.

 

[Evo]

This isn't about what's best for society. This is about an individual's rights. Damaging a person's property without their permission is illegal. Period. There should be no exceptions to that because people want electricity.

First you say CO2, then you talk about personal property damage. This thread is making no sense. Closed.