The de Blasio administration has filed a federal lawsuit against a handful of major oil companies for their role in climate change and its impact on New York City — particularly in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, city officials said on Wednesday.

That includes seeking reparations for damage and for the sky-high costs of building up the city’s resiliency for future mega-storms.

“The city seeks to shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York.

It names as defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips; Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell – which the court papers allege have produced more than 11 percent of the world’s carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources “since the dawn of the industrial revolution.”

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/de-blasio ... te-change/

Well, at least some of the external cost that currently is not included in the price of fossil fuels is being priced in this way. I do not like the claim culture in America, but I must say I like this one, not the least because of the public attention being gained for climate change

Ok, so who is going to sue New York City for concreting over thousands of square miles of nature, consume millions of tonnes of concrete and steel to build towering monstrosities, allowing hundreds of thousands of drivers to drive its streets, using untold amounts of electricity to light its roads and advertising boards in Time Square...

These sort of legal cases cut both ways. If the oil industry is responsible for climate change, then so is the governing body of the city.

Deblasio is positioning for a Presidential run in 3 years this is just fodder for the base.

Publicity for a grandstanding politician. As if he and NYC did not prosper with the help of oil.

I believe De Blasio is setting himself up for a 2020 run. One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Dutchy wrote:

The de Blasio administration has filed a federal lawsuit against a handful of major oil companies for their role in climate change and its impact on New York City — particularly in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, city officials said on Wednesday.

That includes seeking reparations for damage and for the sky-high costs of building up the city’s resiliency for future mega-storms.

“The city seeks to shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York.

It names as defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips; Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell – which the court papers allege have produced more than 11 percent of the world’s carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources “since the dawn of the industrial revolution.”

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/de-blasio ... te-change/

Well, at least some of the external cost that currently is not included in the price of fossil fuels is being priced in this way. I do not like the claim culture in America, but I must say I like this one, not the least because of the public attention being gained for climate change

There's a lot to be said and done for climate change, but I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere. Too specific of a scope, hard to prove what level of contributory negligence the oil companies collectively caused, etc. I'd rather focus on cutting tax incentives for oil companies and move them to green technology companies.

apodino wrote:

One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

LittleFokker wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The de Blasio administration has filed a federal lawsuit against a handful of major oil companies for their role in climate change and its impact on New York City — particularly in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, city officials said on Wednesday.

That includes seeking reparations for damage and for the sky-high costs of building up the city’s resiliency for future mega-storms.

“The city seeks to shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York.

It names as defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips; Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell – which the court papers allege have produced more than 11 percent of the world’s carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources “since the dawn of the industrial revolution.”

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/de-blasio ... te-change/

Well, at least some of the external cost that currently is not included in the price of fossil fuels is being priced in this way. I do not like the claim culture in America, but I must say I like this one, not the least because of the public attention being gained for climate change

There's a lot to be said and done for climate change, but I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere. Too specific of a scope, hard to prove what level of contributory negligence the oil companies collectively caused, etc. I'd rather focus on cutting tax incentives for oil companies and move them to green technology companies.

Perhaps, but the second blow for these oil companies is the desinvestment in fossil fuel companies for the pension plans of the civil servants of New York, 5b in all. This is part of a global effort to get these social financial institutions to get out of fossil fuel companies. It puts a lot of pressure on these oil companies to change into renewable energies. So if these companies are convicted or not is not the point, but there is being put pressure on them and that is the big thing and hopefully in th eye of John and Jane, these companies are getting the same status as the tobacco industry or companies using child labor.

Dutchy wrote:

apodino wrote:

One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

But at the end of the day, it is not just the oil industry causing "global warming". With Tobacco, there was a direct causality between smoking and health issues.
With Global warming, deforestation, coal, natural gas, oil, shale, and many other items are contributing. Suing over Sandy is also problematic, as even though climate change through global warming could make storms like Sandy more likely to occur, it still doesn't cause a direct causality to the oil industry on it's own.


This lawsuit is a public stunt, but Apodino is right, the less we require of Fossil fuels, the better.

casinterest wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

apodino wrote:

One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

But at the end of the day, it is not just the oil industry causing "global warming". With Tobacco, there was a direct causality between smoking and health issues.
With Global warming, deforestation, coal, natural gas, oil, shale, and many other items are contributing. Suing over Sandy is also problematic, as even though climate change through global warming could make storms like Sandy more likely to occur, it still doesn't cause a direct causality to the oil industry on it's own.


This lawsuit is a public stunt, but Apodino is right, the less we require of Fossil fuels, the better.

Sure let's get rid of fossil fuels all together. Working on it

Dutchy wrote:

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

I guess key would be when oil companies knew climate change is real, and what did they publicly said about it. Iirc what broke the tobacco industries back was that they knew it causes cancer, but claimed it didn't.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

I guess key would be when oil companies knew climate change is real, and what did they publicly said about it. Iirc what broke the tobacco industries back was that they knew it causes cancer, but claimed it didn't.

Best regards
Thomas

That is indeed the key, Thomas, for Shell it seems pretty clear that they knew in the 80's, but afterward elected to lobby against any real solutions.

This is BS. If anyone is getting compensation money from the oil companies for the effects of climate change change, it should be the people of Kiribati and Bangladesh, not the government of the richest city on the planet.

That said, the externalities of pollution need to be taken care of.

This is silly given that the main threats to New Yorkers are the financial burden of New York City municipal and regional public sector workers -- lots of whom are under DeBlasio's direct supervision.

Rather than mitigate these threats for which he is personally responsible, he wants to divert attention to things that are completely irrelevant. God forbid New York becomes a little bit warmer.

Flighty wrote:

This is silly given that the main threats to New Yorkers are the financial burden of New York City municipal and regional public sector workers -- lots of whom are under DeBlasio's direct supervision.

Rather than mitigate these threats for which he is personally responsible, he wants to divert attention to things that are completely irrelevant. God forbid New York becomes a little bit warmer.

Stand by for more outrageous schemes coming out of NY , potential budget gap estimate of 4 billion dollars and gov suing the federal government over new tax plan. Instead of looking inward at what the problem is , the politicians are pointing the finger everywhere else

Dutchy wrote:

apodino wrote:

One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

Fossil fuels make our lives better. Tobacco products don't.

casinterest wrote:

This lawsuit is a public stunt, but Apodino is right, the less we require of Fossil fuels, the better.

Wrong. We live longer, healthier, and more rewarding lives as we use more fossil fuels. There are no practical alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons for some of the most critical functions in our economy. Using less hydrocarbons means more people living cold, dark, and boring lives. No thanks.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'd rather focus on cutting tax incentives for oil companies and move them to green technology companies.

I'm sure that line earns you approving nods at your cocktail parties, but it is totally meaningless.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

apodino wrote:

One issue I have legally with this lawsuit is that Oil companies have nothing without people who consume their product. And everytime you get into a car, step onto an airplane, or take a train outside the northeast corridor, you consume their product, and by doing so you are helping contribute to the problem.

We can blame politicians and big corporations all we want, but the only way to affect them is to stop consuming their products.

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

Fossil fuels make our lives better. Tobacco products don't.

casinterest wrote:

This lawsuit is a public stunt, but Apodino is right, the less we require of Fossil fuels, the better.

Wrong. We live longer, healthier, and more rewarding lives as we use more fossil fuels. There are no practical alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons for some of the most critical functions in our economy. Using less hydrocarbons means more people living cold, dark, and boring lives. No thanks.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'd rather focus on cutting tax incentives for oil companies and move them to green technology companies.

I'm sure that line earns you approving nods at your cocktail parties, but it is totally meaningless.

No, It is not wrong. There are functions that will use fossil fuels for critical functionality, but as renewable go up, we will not require more fossil fuels. We will require less.

The Sun dumps enough power on the earth in one hour to power 120 Trillion 60 watt light bulbs for 24 hours, or enogh power for 2.88 quadrillion 60 watt bulbs for that same hour.


That is the same energy that helped create those fossil fuels we use. We have to use Solar and wind as it is the direct source. Fossil fuels are more like a battery, and we just need better batteries for the renewables to make them more workable. As time goes on Coal and oil will have a much less place in the world of power.

casinterest wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Well, that is the exact reasoning the tobacco industry used: consumers are responsible, not the companies, it didn't hold in the end.

Fossil fuels make our lives better. Tobacco products don't.

casinterest wrote:

This lawsuit is a public stunt, but Apodino is right, the less we require of Fossil fuels, the better.

Wrong. We live longer, healthier, and more rewarding lives as we use more fossil fuels. There are no practical alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons for some of the most critical functions in our economy. Using less hydrocarbons means more people living cold, dark, and boring lives. No thanks.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'd rather focus on cutting tax incentives for oil companies and move them to green technology companies.

I'm sure that line earns you approving nods at your cocktail parties, but it is totally meaningless.

No, It is not wrong. There are functions that will use fossil fuels for critical functionality, but as renewabe go up, we will not require more fossil fuels. We will require less.

The Sun dumps enough power on the earth in one hour to power 120 Trillion 60 watt light bulbs for 24 hours, or enogh power for 2.88 quadrillion 60 watt bulbs for that same hour.


That is the same energy that helped create those fossil fuels we use. We have to use Solar and wind as it is the direct source. Fossil fuels are more like a battery, and we just need better batteries for the renewables to make them more workable. As time goes on Coal and oil will have a much less place in the world of power.

@DfwRevolution you sound like a true addict

If this lawsuit were to pay off I hate to think of the doors it will open up. Hold car manufacturers liable for car crashes because they knew their vehicles could hurt people if used improperly. Hold the brewers and distillers liable because somebody became a drunk and ruined their health. Sue the knife manufacturers because a knife that should have been used to cut steak was used to stab somebody to death. These products are all dangerous but you can't just blame everybody for everything.

If the oil companies are to be held liable for climate change then NYC needs to be held liable for its existence. A city that size is a environmental disaster in itself. The earth would be better off with without cities, industry and humans, but none of those things are going anywhere,

Another leftist lunatic. This is hilarious.

falstaff wrote:

If this lawsuit were to pay off I hate to think of the doors it will open up. Hold car manufacturers liable for car crashes because they knew their vehicles could hurt people if used improperly. Hold the brewers and distillers liable because somebody became a drunk and ruined their health. Sue the knife manufacturers because a knife that should have been used to cut steak was used to stab somebody to death. These products are all dangerous but you can't just blame everybody for everything.

If the oil companies are to be held liable for climate change then NYC needs to be held liable for its existence. A city that size is a environmental disaster in itself. The earth would be better off with without cities, industry and humans, but none of those things are going anywhere,

Just take a step back. The product oil companies produce: "oil" is being sold below its actual cost because a large of the cost (climate change) is being paid by society at large, not the oil companies. All the cost of climate change is being paid by the taxpayer. I don't mind paying the true cost of oil, do you?

falstaff wrote:

If this lawsuit were to pay off I hate to think of the doors it will open up. Hold car manufacturers liable for car crashes because they knew their vehicles could hurt people if used improperly. Hold the brewers and distillers liable because somebody became a drunk and ruined their health. Sue the knife manufacturers because a knife that should have been used to cut steak was used to stab somebody to death. These products are all dangerous but you can't just blame everybody for everything.

If the oil companies are to be held liable for climate change then NYC needs to be held liable for its existence. A city that size is a environmental disaster in itself. The earth would be better off with without cities, industry and humans, but none of those things are going anywhere,

There is evidence that scientists at Exxon/Mobil knew that climate change is being accelerated from man made activities they know it's destructive and are choosing not to take any action. That is why the tobacco companies lost their lawsuits as well as lobby a lot of governments not to take action on climate change. The public having objective knowledge might make different decisions.

Your examples are not accurate because we know a car can be dangerous and car manufacturers have re-designed cars to make them safer and add in seat-belts and air bags, had car companies covered up that a piece of fabric that can lock up at high speeds save lives and covered it up they would have suffered the same fate as the tobacco industry.

Same with alcohol and now cannabis when that eventually becomes legal, they do not hide that alcohol is dangerous in the public debate.

Dutchy wrote:

falstaff wrote:

If this lawsuit were to pay off I hate to think of the doors it will open up. Hold car manufacturers liable for car crashes because they knew their vehicles could hurt people if used improperly. Hold the brewers and distillers liable because somebody became a drunk and ruined their health. Sue the knife manufacturers because a knife that should have been used to cut steak was used to stab somebody to death. These products are all dangerous but you can't just blame everybody for everything.

If the oil companies are to be held liable for climate change then NYC needs to be held liable for its existence. A city that size is a environmental disaster in itself. The earth would be better off with without cities, industry and humans, but none of those things are going anywhere,

Just take a step back. The product oil companies produce: "oil" is being sold below its actual cost because a large of the cost (climate change) is being paid by society at large, not the oil companies. All the cost of climate change is being paid by the taxpayer. I don't mind paying the true cost of oil, do you?

The last point is the central argument for the lawsuit. The oil companies produce the product but pay very little to nothing of the potential consequences of their product. The pollution, the clean ups, the accidents etc.

Exxon has fought endlessly appealing the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and are do not pay out of pocket when pipelines leak, even if the said company has been deemed liable. They tie it up in court for decades appealing the rulings

NYC has to plan for rising sea levels and potentially getting storms like Sandy much more frequently and feel that the oil and gas industry bears some of that cost. Does it have a shot? Possibly not, but it is a civil trial if it gets there, the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.

StarAC17 wrote:

NYC has to plan for rising sea levels and potentially getting storms like Sandy much more frequently and feel that the oil and gas industry bears some of that cost. Does it have a shot? Possibly not, but it is a civil trial if it gets there, the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.

where would the Jury members come from? Because for each one of them that may very well be "either i pay for that with my taxes, or they pay". Probably sort of hart to get an impartial Jury for this one.

best regards
Thomas

StarAC17 wrote:

There is evidence that scientists at Exxon/Mobil knew that climate change is being accelerated from man made activities they know it's destructive and are choosing not to take any action. That is why the tobacco companies lost their lawsuits as well as lobby a lot of governments not to take action on climate change. The public having objective knowledge might make different decisions.

Shell knew as well - in 1986 as is evident in this tape Shell produced in 1991.

Worth a read (in Dutch but should be ok in google translate): https://decorrespondent.nl/6262/reconst ... 8-e657cfa2

De Blasio is a known lunatic. Really makes you wish Bloomberg was back running NYC. If he is (God help us) planning on running for 2020 I will do everything in my power as a registered Democrat to make sure he doesn't make it to be the party's nomination.

Super80Fan wrote:

De Blasio is a known lunatic. Really makes you wish Bloomberg was back running NYC. If he is (God help us) planning on running for 2020 I will do everything in my power as a registered Democrat to make sure he doesn't make it to be the party's nomination.

I don't think you have to worry about him winning the nomination in 2020. He has no chance. If Trump is beatable Cuomo will surge.

Super80Fan wrote:

De Blasio is a known lunatic. Really makes you wish Bloomberg was back running NYC. If he is (God help us) planning on running for 2020 I will do everything in my power as a registered Democrat to make sure he doesn't make it to be the party's nomination.

That might be the case, I don't follow the American politics as close as you do, I image. But still this lunatic - your words - is right in this case. The price of oil must include all the external damages and then renewables will win and we can make steps towards cleaning up the environment.