Cannaughton never sued the asbestos industry. He represented polluters.
Mike Ballard wrote:
>Climate change: Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of law
>
>Sun May 29, 6:42 PM ET
>
>You are a small island state, watching your low coastline being slowly
>gobbled up by rising seas and eroded by storms.
>
>You are an Australian or African farmer whose crops have been turned to
>dust by the third successive year of drought.
>
>You are a low-altitude ski resort in the French Alps, staring at yet
>another winter of snowless slopes.
>
>You are a British houseowner, whose pretty riverside home became
>uninsurable and lost two-thirds of its value after the authorities
>designated it in a zone liable to floods.
>
>What do you do?
>
>Well, today, you'd probably just shrug your shoulders and blame bad
>luck or the gods of weather. In the future, though, you may prefer to
>phone your attorney.
>
>Governments, oil producers, coal-fired power plants or their corporate
>inheritors, even auto companies which make gas-guzzling SUVs -- all are
>tempting targets for climate-change lawsuits in the future, says a
>small but growing body of legal opinion.
>
>"Litigation on climate-related damage is clearly on the horizon," says
>Richard Lord, a senior London attorney in commercial law.
>
>He draws a parallel with lawsuits on tobacco and asbestos that were
>initially tossed out of court, but doggedly returned and decades later
>resulted in damages in the tens of billions of dollars.
>
>But these sums would no doubt be dwarfed by any ruling that found a
>government or corporation deliberately promoted use of a damaging
>greenhouse-gas pollutant, was obstructive about cleaning it up or
>covered up knowledge about the threat.
>
>"If generally accepted scientific assessments are accurate, global
>warming is likely to be the most expensive environmental problem ever,"
>says Andrew Strauss, a professor of international law at Widener
>University Law School in Delaware and Pennsylvania.
>
>"Determinations are going to have to be made about who is going to bear
>these costs... (and) litigation will very likely play a role."
>
>Just five years ago, the idea of suing the US government, Exxon, Ford
>or some other big promoter or user of fossil fuels because of global
>warming would have raised a guffaw.
>
>Everyone agrees with the "polluter pays" principle -- it's only fair
>that if someone pours sewage into a river or dumps toxic waste at sea
>or in the fields, he should be liable for damages.
>
>So, by this line of thinking, if oil, gas and coal release carbon
>dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, and if CO2 traps solar heat and
>changes the climate system, why shouldn't those who have suffered from
>the damage get redress?
>
>But, at that time, legal action seemed ludicrous.
>
>For one thing, the available science was poor. It was unable to prove
>that extreme weather events were caused by the burning of fossil fuels
>rather than by some natural oscillation in the climate system, of the
>kind that the world has experienced many times in its past.
>
>And another obstacle was how to apportion blame. If a pollutant crosses
>borders and is caused by a fuel willingly used by everyone, how can a
>specific government or corporation be held responsible for it?
>
>Today, the blame question remains unsettled, but the scientific hurdle
>has shrunk significantly.
>
>Evidence that climate change is already underway has strengthened.
>Research has boosted the probability link between specific bouts of
>extreme weather and rising greenhouse-gas emissions. And scientists are
>becoming more skilled at calculating how and where climate change will
>strike.
>
>As a result, several volleys of lawsuits have now been fired in the
>United States, while in Europe, one case has been filed and several
>more are expected in the coming months.
>
>These do not focus on compensation but, instead, on the first steps of
>establishing responsibility, corporate or political.
>
>Twelve US states and several cities are suing the Environmental
>Protection Agency (EPA) over its refusal to classify greenhouse gases
>as pollutants under the US Clean Air Act.
>
>In July last year, eight US states and the city of New York filed a
>suit against the five biggest American power companies, arguing that
>their CO2 emissions are a public nuisance that should be curbed.
>
>Green groups are also suing US export credit groups for funding
>fossil-fuel projects abroad, a move mirrored by activists in Germany.
>
>The United States is the biggest target in the activists' crosshairs.
>
>It is the world's greatest source of greenhouse gases, a profligate
>user of fossil fuels and refuses to join the UN's Kyoto Protocol on
>curbing these emissions.
>
>More usefully, from the greens' view, it also has a tradition by which
>successful litigation often leads to changes in government policies.
>
>James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on
>Environmental Quality, was asked in a recent visit to Paris whether he
>had given President George W. Bush any assessment of the risk to the
>United States from climate litigation.
>
>"Absolutely!" said Connaughton, himself an attorney who helped sue the
>asbestos industry.
>
>He added though: "Endless litigation in America typically has not
>solved fundamental problems... it's probably the least effective and
>the most expensive tool (of public policy) we have, which is why you
>need to get on with better economic policies, with smarter investments
>in technology, and creating an environment where investments in those
>technologies can occur."
>
>Lord says the first batch of US lawsuits probably have a low chance of
>success given their novelty and the persistence of blanks in scientific
>knowledge.
>
>But, he believes, their outcome could well set down vital precedents
>such as whether a court is competent to rule on such cases, what kinds
>of scientific evidence or interpretations are judicially acceptable.
>
>The legal road ahead is very long and it may be many years before any
>lawsuit succeeds, but the spectre of massive liability claims is now
>being taken seriously, says Lord.
>
>"If the (scientific) scenario pans out as expected in the next 20, 30
>years, it will be very difficult for (CO2) emitters to say they could
>not have foreseen what was going to happen.
>
>"There has been a very significant change in the oil companies'
>attitude, which in the past was basically to brazen it out, saying
>there's no such things as climate change, it's a green-extreme,
>politically-inspired plot," he says.
>
>"From anecdotal evidence, it's fairly sure that the oil industry is now
>taking it seriously and taking legal advice."
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050529/sc_afp/climateenvironmentlaw_050529224240&printer=1
>
>******************************************************************
>"If a man rates all phenomena alike
>because he knows of no essence that
>would allow him to discriminate, he
>will in a fanaticized love of truth
>make common cause with untruth."
>NEGATIVE DIALECTICS--Adorno
>http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901