Suing over global warming?

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:53 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/10/report-climate-provision-allow-global-warming-victims-sue/

An under-the-radar provision in a House climate bill would give plaintiffs who claim to be victims of global warming a way to sue the federal government or businesses, according to a report Friday in The Washington Times.

The Times reported that Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts added it into a bill they authored.

The provision, which was just released, reportedly would set grounds for plaintiffs who has "suffered" or expect to suffer "harm" attributable at least in part to government inaction. The provision defines "harm" as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change)," according to the Times. Plaintiffs could seek up to $75,000 in damages a year from the government, with $1.5 million being the maximum total payout.

The Times reported that Waxman is trying to accelerate passage for the bill through his committee, as the Senate begins drafting its own version.

What an incredibly terrible idea. I haven't been able to access the Washington Times' article on it, and I'm kind of neutral on the whole global warming thing, but... come on. The pool of potential plaintiffs in this kind of thing is endless, because global warming is attributed as a cause of just about every weather-related event.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:04 pm

Who needs flood insurance, or hurricane insurance etc. Just sue the government.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:10 pm

What are you complaining about? You're a lawyer! Cha-ching! Seriously, this is just what we need...more frivolous lawsuits.

I'm really annoyed by the whole global warming thing...I was just watching something on Discovery or the History Channel...yeah, it was the History Channel I think...something about the search for Noah's Ark or something. Anyway, they mentioned a global warming that happened thousands and thousands of years ago (in the context of how it could have caused the flood etc.). I guess the fact that there was a global warming back then isn't in question...so anyway, they didn't have cars and fossil fuels and all the "emissions" back then so what caused the global warming back then? Could it be that normal plant life (which gives off most of the carbon emissions) and natural elements caused the global warming?

That is not to say that I don't think we need to worry about our limited energy resources or that I don't care about the planet and what I leave behind to my kids...but this whole global warming scare is the same scare that they gave us when I was a kid and there was a gas shortage because OPEC was pissed at how much the US was helping Israel. It's not based on anything other than politics.

And that's my .02...now where is my check because this global warming caused my kids to go swimming earlier and thus I needed to buy them more bathing suits this year. Help gubment, help!

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:17 pm

They can cover my AC bills for the summer since it starts sooner and lasts longer and runs more during the rest of the days due to elevated temps!

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:18 pm

Can you imagine all the skin cancer suits? I had to have some spots removed last year due to sun damage..would that count?

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:09 pm

Can you imagine all the skin cancer suits? I had to have some spots removed last year due to sun damage..would that count?

You know what's funny? One of Obama's plans to fight global warming is to release particulates in the air that will reflect or otherwise block solar radiation from reaching the earth. So, less sunlight == less warming, right?

The only problem is that these particulates have the side effect of destroying the ozone layer, which blocks harmful UV radiation. Remember that whole panic?

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:23 pm

Wouldn't blocking solar radiation sort of put the kabash on solar energy? Or maybe if he tears into the ozone, it would actually help with solar energy? Obviously I'm not a scientist because Al Gore is way too smart for me. (sarcasm). But yes, I remember the ozone panic that almost put Aqua Net out of business. I say "almost" because after learning how I have to put my girl's hair in a bun for their dance recital, I assume that alone has kept Aqua Net in bidness. LOL

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:17 pm

Can you imagine all the skin cancer suits? I had to have some spots removed last year due to sun damage..would that count?
You know what's funny? One of Obama's plans to fight global warming is to release particulates in the air that will reflect or otherwise block solar radiation from reaching the earth. So, less sunlight == less warming, right?

The only problem is that these particulates have the side effect of destroying the ozone layer, which blocks harmful UV radiation. Remember that whole panic?

It wasn't a panic - it was an still is true. If we lose the ozone layer, ALL life on Earth will be destroyed. So it is a little important.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:49 pm

But we were able to repair the ozone layer weren't we? And now we're going to destroy it again because of global warming? I'm confused.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:30 pm

In the late 80's and early 90's a global treaty banning CFCs, the compunds responsible for damaging the ozone layer, was passed internationally. The ozone hole in Antarctica is repairing itself, and it has shrunk from its biggest size. But it is still there and and will take several more years to repair itself. I just taught an environmental science class and this topic was discussed in detail.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:48 am

I don't know if the ozone hole thing was true or not, but it was still a media event that induced a great deal of hysteria. People panic over lots of things, some justified, some not. I wasn't making a value judgment on the ozone hole thing, but concern about it does seem to have gone out of vogue.

And just to be clear - I wasn't making a value judgment on the whole atmospheric particulate thing either. A lot of scientists think it may be viable, but it will have side effects.

EDIT: That's not to say that I buy into the whole man-made global warming theory, either. I agree there's evidence to support the theory, but I have serious doubts about it.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:51 am

Doc, let me assure you that the ozone hole is real and there is plenty of information out there on it.

Also, as a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I get the Journal Science every week. While I am not an expert of climate science, I have yet to read an article that says that man made global warming isn't true. This is one of the points that Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth. And let me assure you that Science is a very prestigeous and well respected journal.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:01 am

Well, there are plenty of science articles that dispute man-made global warming slider...of course, I don't read science mags so I'm sure I know less than you. I'm surely believe that man has done things to destroy the planet...I just don't think you can blame global warming only on man-made things. I saw a news report (I believe on ABC) that showed the chart that Gore showed in his movie. It shows that the high carbon emissions come AFTER the warming occurs...so there is the idea that global warming is causing the rise the carbon emissions.

Also, how do you explain the global warming that happened thousands of years ago? Less people on the earth and certainly no industrialized nations yet. I just think the earth goes through these tempature changes and while industrialization may make those changes more prevalent, it's not the overall cause.

Again, I'm no science expert but I find that there are many things that we just can't explain yet. And I have no problem with theories being exposed to the public, but I do have a problem when ALL theories are not exposed or suppressed due to politics or whatever.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:09 am

You are correct about natural cycling global warming. But from what I have read, this outpaces anything ever seen in nature.

One thing I do suggest with ALL science - review the source of funding of the scientist talking. There is this bonehead named Richard Lindzen who the anti-global warming people trot out to debunk GW. Howeverm he conveniently forgets to tell you that his research is funded by Exxon Mobil. So what do you think he will say?

And let's just assume for a second that man made GW isn't happening. What's the worst that could happen if we act like it is going on? We become more energy independent, we produce green collar jobs that can't be outsourced, and we develop new technologies that could have other useful applications in the future? What is the downside to this?

On an unrelated note, did you know that there is a patch of garbage in the Pacific Ocean that is twice the size of Texas? http://science.howstuffworks.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm Another example of man screwing up the environment.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:12 am

I wish I had time to find the article but I have read in the past that one moderate volcanic eruption puts out more "greenhouse gasses" than mankind has created since the industrial revolution. There are multiple eruptions each year, so to think that we are the sole cause is IMO ridiculous. now this is not to say we haven't created pollution and other bad for the earth stuff in our time on this planet and that there aren't things that we can do to fix those problems, but global climate change is coming whether we're here or not.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:13 am

You are absolutely correct about volcanos. And nobody is saying that man is the only cause. But we have accelerated the process.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:18 am

Slider, let's say for the sake of argument that I buy into the global warming hype completely. If everything they say is true, then we're already fucked, right? I mean, unless just about everyone on earth adopts a stone-age lifestyle, there's no reversing the warming trend. All we can do now is attempt to mitigate it. Do you agree?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:28 am

Dude, there is nothing that says you have to adopt a stone age lifestyle. But there are things that you can do in your life like recycling, making your home energy efficient, grouping your errands so you don't have to use the car so much, carpooling when necessary, etc. These things aren't major lifestyle changers. Although Fox "News" would have you think so.

As far as revering the trends, the last point Gore makes in his movie is that we as a planet and a people were able to negotiate a treaty to stop the ozone hole. We can do it again with global warming if we have the right political leadership to do it. For the last 8 years, we didn't, and one of my biggest bitches against W was his censoring of science to make it seem that GW isn't going on. Some of the choice might be painful in the short term. But what choice do we have?

Regardless of your political opinions, I strongly suggest that you see An Inconvenient Truth. If anything, it will make you think.

Step away from the Fox propaganda.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:03 pm

No Fox-propaganda here. My impression, however, is that even among scientists who agree on the man-made global warming theory, the ideas about its severity and effects diverge greatly.

Further, my point was that all the recycling and car-pooling in the world isn't going to make enough of a difference to stop or reverse the trend. I'm not trying to call you out on this, I honestly want your thoughts since you seem to know a lot about it.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:46 pm

I don't trust the man-made global warming proposition. Don't get me wrong--I'm not adamantly opposed to the prospect of humanity possessing the capability to forever alter our environment so drastically. However, I do believe the evidence has been overstated by way too many folks with good intentions who were often using obtuse "scientific data" rather creatively to push a political and social agenda.

I actually believe in at least the foundation of those agendas, namely that in the aggregate, humanity should give the land to our kids in better shape than we got it. I learned that growing up in agriculture, first from my dad and then more directly from FFA. It's a simple principle that shouldn't require justification with arguments that can easily be characterized as specious, such as man-made global warming. We should be able as a society to embrace the principles without even worrying about something like global warming. But, of course, our vaunted leaders have seized the opportunity to use ridiculous and absurd "disagreements" for their personal political gain, at the expense of humanity's welfare.

Those thoughts always make my first inclination toward global warming to be STFU. But, being rational, I force myself to continue considering the possibilities.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:12 pm

slider...I agree with you that some of the changes we can make in our lives to help the environment surely don't hurt anything...necessarily...unless, like doc was speculating, the thing you are doing ends up hurting some other part of the earth and/or atmosphere. Isn't there a concern over using corn/ethenol (is that right?) because growing enough corn to both eat and use as energy would mean tearing up the earth way more than would be worth it?

And of course there is always cost. Until someone makes a cost effective way to do all this stuff, it's just not going to work. And I don't buy into the oil companies always being the bad guys. They would be really stupid to not try and diversify and get into alternative energies...I mean we won't have gas forever will we? And since I know that, I would hope they know that.

In any case, we have been recycling since I've been an adult and we don't even have it picked up in front of our house...Bill has to take it to the bins at the elementary school...but we do it. And like I said, if they would make an minivan that wasn't overly expensive but ran on hydrogen or whatever, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

I would actually love the whole natural gas thing where you could fill your tank at your house every night. I like those kind of "convenient" truths! LOL

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:47 pm

No Fox-propaganda here. My impression, however, is that even among scientists who agree on the man-made global warming theory, the ideas about its severity and effects diverge greatly.

Further, my point was that all the recycling and car-pooling in the world isn't going to make enough of a difference to stop or reverse the trend. I'm not trying to call you out on this, I honestly want your thoughts since you seem to know a lot about it.

Like I said, I am not a climate expert. I have actually read a lot about this. And you are right that the severity of the problem isn't well known. But I do know this - scientists across the globe do believe this is going on right now. There was some statement signed last year to that effect - of which I have forgotten the details.

I just got done teaching an environmental science class so this topic is currently in my head right now.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:52 pm

slider...I agree with you that some of the changes we can make in our lives to help the environment surely don't hurt anything...necessarily...unless, like doc was speculating, the thing you are doing ends up hurting some other part of the earth and/or atmosphere. Isn't there a concern over using corn/ethenol (is that right?) because growing enough corn to both eat and use as energy would mean tearing up the earth way more than would be worth it?

And of course there is always cost. Until someone makes a cost effective way to do all this stuff, it's just not going to work. And I don't buy into the oil companies always being the bad guys. They would be really stupid to not try and diversify and get into alternative energies...I mean we won't have gas forever will we? And since I know that, I would hope they know that.

In any case, we have been recycling since I've been an adult and we don't even have it picked up in front of our house...Bill has to take it to the bins at the elementary school...but we do it. And like I said, if they would make an minivan that wasn't overly expensive but ran on hydrogen or whatever, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

I would actually love the whole natural gas thing where you could fill your tank at your house every night. I like those kind of "convenient" truths! LOL

I'm not certain about the ethanol thing. I have seen conflicting reports on this. I do know this though - Brazil has managed to make fuel from sugar cane in an effort to ween themselves off of OPEC, and they have been successful with it. Why can't we do this? Why do we keep talking about ethanol? One major reason - the Iowa Caucus is the first one in election season.

I am not a big fan of oil companies - especially since they gang raped this country last year and would do so again in a heartbeat. Which is one of the many reasons we need to get off of oil.

Speaking of natural gas, in Argentina, the car run on them and they have for a long time. I saw a story on the Today Show about this last summer. Why can't we do this? Two words - Oil Lobby.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:29 pm

Sugar cane is not an easy crop slider...and where are you going to find enough people to work for nothing to cut that stuff to make it worth it (like they do places like Brazil)? Oh, that's right, we'll let in all the illegal aliens to do that work for us!

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:33 pm

Good questions that I don't have an answer for. But I can tell you this - Big Sugar in Florida would like nothing better than to see this. Since they own most of the politicians in Florida, I don't know why this idea hasn't be looked at.

My other point that I was trying to make was if Brazil can do something, why can't we?