Climate Change - Litigations

[clivehorridge]

In connection with my job, we process many claims for contractors, based on the effects of "exceptionally adverse climatic conditions" which have caused delay to a project and as a consequence exposes the contractor to punitive delay damages claims (which can run to tens of millions) from the employer (the owner of the project).

Whilst reading legal papers discussing each and every aspect of the above, I came across this article, which I thought was interesting and likely a sign of things to come...

New York City Sues Five Largest Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages.

New York City filed a federal lawsuit against the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel producers seeking costs the City had incurred and would continue to incur to protect itself and its residents from the impacts of climate change. The City filed the lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The City alleged that the defendants “produced, marketed, and sold massive quantities of fossil fuels” despite knowing for many years that the use of fossil fuels caused emissions of greenhouse gas emissions that would accumulate and remain in the atmosphere for centuries, causing “grave harm.” The City alleged that the five defendants were responsible “for over 11% of all the carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution” and that the defendants also were responsible “for leading the public relations strategy for the entire fossil fuel industry, downplaying the risks of climate change and promoting fossil fuel use despite the risks.” The City charged that the defendants’ actions constituted an unlawful public and private nuisance and an illegal trespass on City property. The climate change-related injuries alleged by the City included more frequent and more intense heat waves, extreme precipitation, and sea level rise. In addition to money damages, the City seeks an equitable order ascertaining the damages and granting an injunction to abate the public nuisance and trespass should the defendants fail to pay the damages for past and permanent injuries. https://bit.ly/2M3e7kA

Such claims are, as yet, a long way from success, and to directly connect an oil company with a specific dramatic climate change may still be beyond the scope of the law. However, a project run by the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law of the Columbia Law School provides a database of climate change litigation both in the US and internationally. https://bit.ly/2lh7JL9.

One interesting case, currently continuing in Germany involves a Peruvian farmer who has made a claim against RWE, Germany’s largest electricity producer, claiming that it has contributed to climate change and must bear some measure of responsibility for the melting of mountain glaciers near his town, increasing the volume of a glacial lake and thus threatening his farm. The case was initially dismissed on the basis that the claimant was unable to demonstrate a “lineal causal claim”, but, after an appeal, it is now going to trial. https://bit.ly/2zEqnSZ .

If the Sabin Centre database is to be believed this is the only international case underway at present. Although the German decision will not be binding internationally it will certainly provide the foundation for other claimants to try to make similar arguments in other jurisdictions.

So, watch this space. There is certainly more to come.

 

[frank rabbets]

That's going to be interesting if the pursuers get their claim and I wonder where the effect would stop. We all pollute the planet knowingly but it's very difficult to point to an exact and measurable damage you have done. If polluting per se were made a criminal offence we'ed all be in jail.

 

[clivehorridge]

That's going to be interesting if the pursuers get their claim and I wonder where the effect would stop. We all pollute the planet knowingly but it's very difficult to point to an exact and measurable damage you have done. If polluting per se were made a criminal offence we'ed all be in jail.

As the article suggested, theres a long way to go before any claimant can prove the nexus between the cause (which is well known) and the effect (also well known) yet tied only to the parties in dispute (claimant and respondent).

However, as you say, once a claim does get awarded, it will likely open the floodgates of litigations.

Yes, we’ve all contributed to the concept of global climate change, but its interesing that the Peruviam Farmer’s claim against RWE, the German power producer has been allowed to go to trial. Maybe its only to demonstrate that such claims will fail, but I’d like to be seated in the gallery throgh those proceedings.

 

[Shayne]

The law works in mysterious ways , i'm sure you heard the one about the guy who sued his insurance because they refused to pay out on the rare and expensive cigars which were covered against fire damage , he argued that he used them as they were intended to be used hence having smoked them he should be paid . He won full costs and damages totaling say 1 million dollars .

The insurance company counter sued citing deliberate destruction of insured property and they won full costs and damages totaling 1 million from the guy who smoked the cigars .

It's likely an anecdotal story but for me the moral of it is - only lawyers win if people exercise their right to take even the stupidest dispute to court .

 

[clivehorridge]

The law works in mysterious ways , i'm sure you heard the one about the guy who sued his insurance because they refused to pay out on the rare and expensive cigars which were covered against fire damage , he argued that he used them as they were intended to be used hence having smoked them he should be paid . He won full costs and damages totaling say 1 million dollars .

The insurance company counter sued citing deliberate destruction of insured property and they won full costs and damages totaling 1 million from the guy who smoked the cigars .

It's likely an anecdotal story but for me the moral of it is - only lawyers win if people exercise their right to take even the stupidest dispute to court .

The last remark is spot-on Shayne...

 

[Chas]

The law works in mysterious ways , i'm sure you heard the one about the guy who sued his insurance because they refused to pay out on the rare and expensive cigars which were covered against fire damage , he argued that he used them as they were intended to be used hence having smoked them he should be paid . He won full costs and damages totaling say 1 million dollars .

The insurance company counter sued citing deliberate destruction of insured property and they won full costs and damages totaling 1 million from the guy who smoked the cigars .

It's likely an anecdotal story but for me the moral of it is - only lawyers win if people exercise their right to take even the stupidest dispute to court .

There is a song by a country singer Brad Paisly about that Shayne;

 

[Shayne]

i never knew that Chas

 

[moggy1968]

It’s ridiculous, but it’s legal and it’s in America so it probably will be ridiculous and possible . So now we can all sue shell and BP for global warming!!!

 

[StarCruiser]

So how about the palm oil (or other) farmers who have been slashing and burning the tropical rainforest, the lungs of this planet, that turn CO2 into Oxygen which we all need? Haven’t they played a part in climate change? And who’s to say the climate wouldn’t have changed without the burning of fossil fuels? The only way to do that would be to have a ‘control’ Earth, without fossil fuels but otherwise exactly identical in every way to this planet earth. Without it this there is only assumption and speculation as to whether the burning of fossil fuels has had any effect at all on the planet.

 

[Chas]

Climate change has been happening for millennia but I'm sure since the industrial revolution it has got worse.

 

[clivehorridge]

So how about the palm oil (or other) farmers who have been slashing and burning the tropical rainforest, the lungs of this planet, that turn CO2 into Oxygen which we all need? Haven’t they played a part in climate change? And who’s to say the climate wouldn’t have changed without the burning of fossil fuels? The only way to do that would be to have a ‘control’ Earth, without fossil fuels but otherwise exactly identical in every way to this planet earth. Without it this there is only assumption and speculation as to whether the burning of fossil fuels has had any effect at all on the planet.

Hence the unlikelyhood of a court case succeeding Rich... IMO

 

[StarCruiser]

Hence the unlikelyhood of a court case succeeding Rich... IMO

Exactly what I was thinking. Sounds like somebody is funding the challenge.

 

[moggy1968]

Hence the unlikelyhood of a court case succeeding Rich... IMO

Don’t you believe it, it’s America. This is the place where a woman successfully sued a shop after she fell over some miss behaving children, they were her kids! Just because it’s stupid doesn’t mean it won’t win in America.