6 ms·

This is pretty classic nuisance extortion through the courts. What were the oil companies meant to do in order to avoid this lawsuit? Shut down their entire bus

This is pretty classic nuisance extortion through the courts. What were the oil companies meant to do in order to avoid this lawsuit? Shut down their entire businesses? So that instead Oakland could sue the new oil companies that would inevitably spring up, since our entire civilization still runs on the stuff? Also, though the article doesn't say it outright, it looks as if there's not even given any evidence of current damages, just hundred-year-out projections. (And the record of long-term predictions in this domain is certainly not precise enough to base legal arguments on.) So they're meant to pay now for hypothetical damages that may happen later, as punishment for providing the energy that runs our whole society. Okay?

remline 9y ago
If I make a device that lets half of society sit on its ass for 100 years then murders everyone, I think the costs should be factored in by sueing me before everyone is dead. But maybe that's just me.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  You mean like the computers and AI?
  - remline 9y ago
    Every technology has negatives that companies try to turn into externalities. The ones that hurt their non-customers are the most egregious and should be subject to the highest corrections. Hardly a new theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract To give an example, we should be paying more for many electronics as the result of suits against most existing companies for not dealing with Tantalum sourcing.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Not really a useful concept since it’s purely subjective and may not meaningfully exist in any way at all.
      - remline 9y ago
        This is the kind of attitude that disturbs me about recent journalism and what appears to be the dominant opinion in the US. Getting quantitative results is entirely useless if you don't want to think about the subjective qualitative reasons we thought some arbitrary metric might matter and how they might be limited. Having a high GDP or salary is about raising your quality of life and options. If you are actively prevented from living all sorts of other lives simply because they are not as profitable then you are poorer than the wild man.
- pbreit 9y ago
  I don't. There needs to be actual damages or else, who knows?
  - remline 9y ago
    So I can create antisocial companies that hurt more than they help and take/distribute profits until damning evidence is assembled using public resources, then pay back a small portion from whatever I couldn't get off my book value? I'd say that's giving organizations rights in civil matters that only are supposed to apply to individuals in criminal ones. The end result is thousands of companies actively trying to kill us and manipulate evidence and politics for much higher profits than the ones doing net positive work.
    - briandear 9y ago
      Stop buying their products.
    - civilian 9y ago
      You're presuming guilt before guilt has been established. Why do companies make profit? It's because they're offering a product or service that people buy. Why do people buy the product or service? It's because the value they get from the product outweighs the cost. What this really means is that--- all successful companies are doing social good, simply by being in business. If a company is making a big profit, they're probably doing so by providing much more value in their product than what they are charging.
      - remline 9y ago
        The people who buy stolen goods also get more value then they spend, so all thieves are inherently good? Some companies produce more good than bad. Some companies produce more bad than good, but the bad is primarily not affecting their customers. The latter is inherently easier which is why civil courts must be eternally vigilant.
        9y ago
pascalxus 9y ago
This law suit is absolutely ridiculous. What's next, let's sue farmers for farming cows that belch methane into the atmosphere? Or how about we sue all parents for creating people, since people create so much environmental damage. No matter where you stand on the policy of climate change, this law suit sets a dangerous presedent: Using the courts to afflict political change that should be done through other means. I'm all for reducing climate change. But there are ways to do that. First of all, get rid of all the oil subsidies! That's the first thing that should be done. Then, tax the oil industry and others pollutants proportionately to the amount of climate change produced, perhaps measured by the amount of resultant Co2.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  I'm just here to play devils advocate, I don't know how I feel about this suite. That said, oil companies have known about the effects of climate change for a while, have known that their products cause it, and then with that knowledge funded climate change disinformation campaigns to persuade public policy. You can liken it to a drug company knowing about the effects of thermeldahyde on pregnant women, but still pushing it as a cure for morning sickness.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    Yes, but the cities of Oakland and SF use fossil fuels and energy made from fossil fuels, correct? The harm isn't in extracting the oil from the ground, it's in burning it. There are a whole host of people guilty of that, including everyone who puts fuel into their internal combustion powered car and turns the thing on.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      Yes, however the confounding factor is that the large oil companies have spent a lot of money convincing people that these actions are harmless, despite internal data saying otherwise. In a world where these companies kept their mouth shut about climate research, then I don't see how they'd be at fault.
briandear 9y ago
This is a joke. You need standing to sue. You can’t sue unless you have actually suffered a harm. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court ruling on Crawford et al concerning FATCA; the 6th Circut overturned the precedent set by Susan B Anthony List v. Driehaus by adding a heightened requirement for standing; harm doesn’t need to just be credible to give rise to standing, it has to be credible AND certain. Interestingly the recent 6th Circuit decision on Crawford gutted Roe v. Wade as well — essentially making the standing of any woman suing doubtful. Crawford rewrote the standing requirements of Roe v. Wade — and if applied to this current case, the cities will have the case thrown out because a harm from rising sea levels might be credible, but it definitely isn’t certain. That seas levels will rise at all is credible but also not certain. And beyond standing, the question is: did the oil company cause the harm? It could be argued that if an oil company caused a harm by supplying oil, Oakland and San Fran harmed themselves by using gasoline and oil for years and years themselves. So who is culpable? The addict or the dealer? How about city building codes that didn’t properly address the credible harm from rising seas? If such a harm were known and Oakland et al chose to ignore it and continue to issue building permits, then it casts doubt as to the credibility of that harm. If they issued a construction permit while being knowledgeable of the harm, they are negligent; if they don’t actually think it’s a harm enough to change building codes, then it’s obviously not harm enough to get paid by oil companies. I realize that the 6th Circuit doesn’t apply to California, since they are in the 9th, but it’s highly likely Elena Kagen will grant Cert to the Crawford case — a case that’s going to have an incredible effect on standing requirements for lawsuits such as these.
- haltingthoughts 9y ago
  You'd think we'd have a better QOS metric for courts than standing.

remline 9y ago

If I make a device that lets half of society sit on its ass for 100 years then murders everyone, I think the costs should be factored in by sueing me before everyone is dead. But maybe that's just me.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
You mean like the computers and AI?
- remline 9y ago
  Every technology has negatives that companies try to turn into externalities. The ones that hurt their non-customers are the most egregious and should be subject to the highest corrections. Hardly a new theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract To give an example, we should be paying more for many electronics as the result of suits against most existing companies for not dealing with Tantalum sourcing.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Not really a useful concept since it’s purely subjective and may not meaningfully exist in any way at all.
    - remline 9y ago
      This is the kind of attitude that disturbs me about recent journalism and what appears to be the dominant opinion in the US. Getting quantitative results is entirely useless if you don't want to think about the subjective qualitative reasons we thought some arbitrary metric might matter and how they might be limited. Having a high GDP or salary is about raising your quality of life and options. If you are actively prevented from living all sorts of other lives simply because they are not as profitable then you are poorer than the wild man.
pbreit 9y ago
I don't. There needs to be actual damages or else, who knows?
- remline 9y ago
  So I can create antisocial companies that hurt more than they help and take/distribute profits until damning evidence is assembled using public resources, then pay back a small portion from whatever I couldn't get off my book value? I'd say that's giving organizations rights in civil matters that only are supposed to apply to individuals in criminal ones. The end result is thousands of companies actively trying to kill us and manipulate evidence and politics for much higher profits than the ones doing net positive work.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Stop buying their products.
  - civilian 9y ago
    You're presuming guilt before guilt has been established. Why do companies make profit? It's because they're offering a product or service that people buy. Why do people buy the product or service? It's because the value they get from the product outweighs the cost. What this really means is that--- all successful companies are doing social good, simply by being in business. If a company is making a big profit, they're probably doing so by providing much more value in their product than what they are charging.
    - remline 9y ago
      The people who buy stolen goods also get more value then they spend, so all thieves are inherently good? Some companies produce more good than bad. Some companies produce more bad than good, but the bad is primarily not affecting their customers. The latter is inherently easier which is why civil courts must be eternally vigilant.
      - 9y ago

pascalxus 9y ago

This law suit is absolutely ridiculous. What's next, let's sue farmers for farming cows that belch methane into the atmosphere? Or how about we sue all parents for creating people, since people create so much environmental damage. No matter where you stand on the policy of climate change, this law suit sets a dangerous presedent: Using the courts to afflict political change that should be done through other means. I'm all for reducing climate change. But there are ways to do that. First of all, get rid of all the oil subsidies! That's the first thing that should be done. Then, tax the oil industry and others pollutants proportionately to the amount of climate change produced, perhaps measured by the amount of resultant Co2.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
I'm just here to play devils advocate, I don't know how I feel about this suite. That said, oil companies have known about the effects of climate change for a while, have known that their products cause it, and then with that knowledge funded climate change disinformation campaigns to persuade public policy. You can liken it to a drug company knowing about the effects of thermeldahyde on pregnant women, but still pushing it as a cure for morning sickness.
- lliamander 9y ago
  Yes, but the cities of Oakland and SF use fossil fuels and energy made from fossil fuels, correct? The harm isn't in extracting the oil from the ground, it's in burning it. There are a whole host of people guilty of that, including everyone who puts fuel into their internal combustion powered car and turns the thing on.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    Yes, however the confounding factor is that the large oil companies have spent a lot of money convincing people that these actions are harmless, despite internal data saying otherwise. In a world where these companies kept their mouth shut about climate research, then I don't see how they'd be at fault.

briandear 9y ago

This is a joke. You need standing to sue. You can’t sue unless you have actually suffered a harm. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court ruling on Crawford et al concerning FATCA; the 6th Circut overturned the precedent set by Susan B Anthony List v. Driehaus by adding a heightened requirement for standing; harm doesn’t need to just be credible to give rise to standing, it has to be credible AND certain. Interestingly the recent 6th Circuit decision on Crawford gutted Roe v. Wade as well — essentially making the standing of any woman suing doubtful. Crawford rewrote the standing requirements of Roe v. Wade — and if applied to this current case, the cities will have the case thrown out because a harm from rising sea levels might be credible, but it definitely isn’t certain. That seas levels will rise at all is credible but also not certain. And beyond standing, the question is: did the oil company cause the harm? It could be argued that if an oil company caused a harm by supplying oil, Oakland and San Fran harmed themselves by using gasoline and oil for years and years themselves. So who is culpable? The addict or the dealer? How about city building codes that didn’t properly address the credible harm from rising seas? If such a harm were known and Oakland et al chose to ignore it and continue to issue building permits, then it casts doubt as to the credibility of that harm. If they issued a construction permit while being knowledgeable of the harm, they are negligent; if they don’t actually think it’s a harm enough to change building codes, then it’s obviously not harm enough to get paid by oil companies. I realize that the 6th Circuit doesn’t apply to California, since they are in the 9th, but it’s highly likely Elena Kagen will grant Cert to the Crawford case — a case that’s going to have an incredible effect on standing requirements for lawsuits such as these.

haltingthoughts 9y ago
You'd think we'd have a better QOS metric for courts than standing.