> > The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to caus

> > The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to cause global warming, rising waters, hurricanes and all manner of other natural disasters. Suppose that the plaintiffs' allegations are true but the effect of defendants' actions is to counter-balance cooling caused by volcanos, the solar cycle, and/or othe factors. In other words, there's no change because the of the defendants' actions. (This is the background to Niven's Fallen Angels.) In that circumstance, should the plaintiffs pay the defendants for the benefits that they provided? If not, why not?