Could companies be made to pay for stoking climate change?

The world’s top 90 fossil fuel producers, including Chevron and ExxonMobil, have caused half of global temperature increases since 1880, researchers said, potentially enabling people who have been harmed by climate change to sue for damages.

The study in the journal Climatic Change is the first to assess climate change emissions by private and state-owned oil, gas and cement companies, rather than countries, amid debate over who should pay for the impacts of climate change.

“Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm’, and now they must remedy the harm they caused by paying damages and their proportion of adaptation costs,” said the University of Oxford’s Henry Shue.

Shakedown.

Share
  • tom_billesley

    The consumers and producers would be complicit. There’s the rub.
    However, it’s simpler to demand a White tax.

  • mauser 98
    • Mark Matis

      The dates for that rally are correct, but the rally location is on the Seven Mile Bridge just west of Marathon in the Keys. Make sure to block traffic in BOTH directions…

      Has anyone else noted that, in the CONUS, most hurricane damage this year is occurring in areas that were BLUE in last November’s election?

  • CodexCoder

    So by the same reasoning, “Do No Harm”, can I sue the Canadian and Ontario governments for financial mismanagement?

    “Do no harm” is a “basic” principle claimed by liberal thinking and is used to justify all kinds of very wrong behavior. For example, homosexual relationships are “OK” in liberal thinking as long as they “do no harm”, but in point of fact, homosexual relationship are rarely monogamous, resulting in higher rates of social diseases and more suicide attempts. So the “Do No Harm” is preached by the liberal left, but the facts of what constitutes harm are ignored in practice. Abortion is fine as long as it doesn’t harm the mother, but that ignores the psychological damage that is done because women aren’t fans of carnage as a general rule. Liberals will rail against alcohol and tobacco smoking, but will gladly decriminalize yet another more harmful drug, marijuana, to get more revenues. Marijuana damages the lungs (like smoking tobacco), and has long term effects in teenage users by damaging the development of the corpus callosum, the pathways that join the two sides of the brain, which leans to schizoid behavior because the two sides can’t communicate properly. The human brain is still undergoing development until age 25, so limiting the usage from 19 to 25 is not going to help.

    So when a liberal starts yapping about “Do No Harm”, get them to define specifically what constitutes harm, and then pull the hypocrisy apart.

  • andycanuck

    Not to give credence to this bullsh1t but how many would have died over the past 120 years (200 including coal) if fossil fuels were not used?

    • Bla Bla

      Elite globalists don’t believe in facts – much like the marxist that preceeded them. Somehow they believe that they would not be affected by the removal of affordable energy sources that feed the planet and themselves, which points to the mental illness that they all harbor.

  • Thinking From First Principles

    At least one physicist did the math, and global warning could be eliminated by using lighter colored pavements rather than the black macadam that absorbs so much heat. If I saw even one cent of these global warming taxes going into that, there might be some credibility to the taxes. after all, we repave roads all the time and all we need is the lighter colored material for the problem to fix itself at no additional cost as roads are normally repaved!!!!!!!

  • “University of Oxford’s Henry Shue”. And after reading the article I’m convinced that Henry Shue got his PhD from the inside of a Cracker Jack’s box.

    Because of this: “The study calculated the warming caused by carbon dioxide and METHANE emissions from the extraction, production and USE OF THE COMPANIES’ PRODUCTS between 1880 and 2010” (emphases ricardo).

    In other words they included METHANE in the study, not just CO2. And they included consumer USE (i.e. the actual burning of the fossil fuel products), not just the companies’ production of it. And zero stats supplied on any of these important variables for clarification. CO2 is plant food, Methane is a toxic pollutant — they are two opposite categories of things. And consumers burn the lion’s share of fossil fuels, oil companies only burn a small fraction in comparison. Another misleading and fake study, obvious from a cursory analysis.

    And all of it if we were to assume that “climate change” is always a “global” event and that it is primarily caused by human activity (i.e. versus nature) and CO2 in the first place (CO2 is an EFFECT of global warming caused by the sun, not vice-versa). Although one thing that Shue’s shoddy study did prove was that the oil companies are NOT in fact responsible, unless you accept at least three of his demonstrably false and convoluted indicators from the get-go. And I’m no apologist for the oil companies.

    • Jaedo Drax

      Methane, as in Natural Gas, what a good portion of people in canada use to heat their homes. How much you want to bet that he counted those emissions twice?

  • Bla Bla

    They – the globalists – like their marxist counterpart can’t wait to plunge the planet into misery, starvation, and death. They are truly mentally retarded in the real sense and must be stopped by all means necessary. Make the genocidal marxist afraid again.

  • canminuteman

    If I was CEO of one of those countries and the government allowed us to be taken to court I would get together with all the other oil companies and go on strike until civilization collapsed and people were freezing in the dark and dying of starvation.

  • Maggat

    “the politics professor said”, That says it all. Henry Shue needs a shoe up his ass.