5 ms·

Sigh. Journalists who discuss a lawsuit without linking to the actual lawsuit in question... The lawsuit appears to be available at https://multco-web7-psh-fil

Sigh. Journalists who discuss a lawsuit without linking to the actual lawsuit in question... The lawsuit appears to be available at https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Complaint_0.pdf https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.co.... Heading straight for end and looking at the causes of action: 1. Intentional and negligent creation of public nuisance. The nuisance appears to be extreme climate events, and I'm doubtful that you could actually show sufficient action on the part of the oil companies to link them to the extreme climate events (the standard is probably that you need to show that but for the actions of the companies, those events wouldn't have happened and... yeah, that kind of direct attribution isn't possible). 2. Negligence. I mean, this section is a mere page long, and doesn't go into any detail whatsoever, so it's hard to even figure out what is the supposed duty that wasn't done. So... almost certainly going to die on a motion for dismissal. 3. Fraud and deceit, in that they covered up the effects of climate change. Except that's not fraud--fraud requires that someone be reliant on the lie to do something. So you'd need to show that, e.g., someone only bought a tank from gas from Exxon because Exxon said climate change didn't exist. I suppose it's possible that's true--there's millions of people in the country after all--but... that's not really something that happens (least of all, anything actually alleged in the complaint, so far as I can thing). 4. Trespass. Wildfires caused by climate change constituted trespass. Cute legal theory, but cute legal theories are almost always tossed out of court quickly. So out of four claims, three of them are dead on arrival, and the first one has an uphill fight. And even if they win, the $50 billion for "abate the nuisance" definitely isn't going to happen, and you're looking more at the actual damages which is apparently around $50 million.

gnz11 3y ago
> Journalists who discuss a lawsuit without linking to the actual lawsuit in question... The website seems like a PR dumping ground. Given the incomplete byline I would highly doubt they are an actual journalist —- more likely a freelance blogger.
tinco 3y ago
With regards to 1, I think these companies are the wrong ones to target. Oil companies are not the ones who are emitting CO2, they just bring the hydrocarbons to the surface and put it in containers. It's the big buyers of those containers that make the decision to burn the hydrocarbons. Targets of these lawsuits should be energy companies, trucking, shipping, flying, transporting companies. As to 2 it certainly seems like a hard one, but not entirely without merit. Wouldn't it be negligence if you sell a product knowing that your customers are going to use that product to hurt the environment? It's not like a hazardous chemical where you can assume the buyer has processes in place to deal with the results. These companies did the research and they know their product negatively affects the environment when burned, they know the government is not enforcing any checks and balances and still they sell the product to customers who 100% are going to burn the product. In my opinion it's for sure the government and the customers themselves who bear the greatest blame, there's some negligence there. I'm not sure why you're going back on your own argument in 3. I'm sure you could find people whose belief that their buying of oil doesn't affect the climate was cemented by the deceit of those companies. And if someone would start suing companies for negligent burning of hydrocarbons, I'm sure there would be CEO's that would happily point their fingers at the oil companies in accusation of deceit. The trespass one seems ridiculous, I guess because a judge isn't supposed to let frivolous things affect their judgement it's a freebie to throw in? Anyway, 2 and 3 seem to at least have some merit to my untrained eyes. Maybe it's more about sending a message than actually winning a lawsuit? If a judge takes the suit seriously and the oil companies are forced to publicly weasel out of these charges, wouldn't that be some sort of a win for the movement?
- Etrnl_President 3y ago
  Governments are the biggest polluters bu far, and tend to waive accountability for themselves.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    ... AND they are the biggest benefactors, from Aramco to Shell and Total. Most have redirected at least some part of the income to individuals.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > Governments are the biggest polluters in what ways?
    - Etrnl_President 3y ago
      Mostly military, and related industries, but the EPA itself recently polluted an entire town's drinking supply.
      - andrekandre 3y ago
        > the EPA itself recently polluted an entire town's drinking supply. hmmm i tried searching for this but nothing turned up (that noticed)... got a good link?
smsm42 3y ago
I wish there were some law like "if you waste the court system resources for PR and virtue signaling, you are personally liable for triple costs" but it's likely impossible. So the incentive to pull stunts like this is always there.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  Sadly, that likely wouldn't deter this, as the county doesn't really "make" money, it relies on taxes. So it's not their money they're playing with, and the ones pushing this lawsuit probably aren't elected anyway, so they don't risk much.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    No, I mean personal liability for whoever signed under initiating this suit (and maybe sanctions against the lawyers too). US legal system is, however, maximally removed from this - instead, we have a concept of immunity where it is very hard to prosecute a government officer for something they did while executing their office. Ancient Athenians had it simpler - if you bring a lawsuit and less than 1/5 of jurors vote in your favor, you get a heavy fine for wasting everybody's time. Unfortunately, wouldn't work in the US - about 1/3 would vote for anything if it helps their tribal interest and hurts the opposite tribe, even if it's ruinous for the society in general.
paulddraper 3y ago
what is going on in Oregon county? Complete amateur hour
_8j50 3y ago
For #3, not that I agree but they commissioned several studies that showed the effect of fossil fuels on climate change and went to lengths to keep it a secret. Gov/state policy could have changed if that information was made public earlier. I am surprised they didn't mention manipulation of research at unis.
DropInIn 3y ago
[flagged]

gnz11 3y ago

> Journalists who discuss a lawsuit without linking to the actual lawsuit in question... The website seems like a PR dumping ground. Given the incomplete byline I would highly doubt they are an actual journalist —- more likely a freelance blogger.

tinco 3y ago

With regards to 1, I think these companies are the wrong ones to target. Oil companies are not the ones who are emitting CO2, they just bring the hydrocarbons to the surface and put it in containers. It's the big buyers of those containers that make the decision to burn the hydrocarbons. Targets of these lawsuits should be energy companies, trucking, shipping, flying, transporting companies. As to 2 it certainly seems like a hard one, but not entirely without merit. Wouldn't it be negligence if you sell a product knowing that your customers are going to use that product to hurt the environment? It's not like a hazardous chemical where you can assume the buyer has processes in place to deal with the results. These companies did the research and they know their product negatively affects the environment when burned, they know the government is not enforcing any checks and balances and still they sell the product to customers who 100% are going to burn the product. In my opinion it's for sure the government and the customers themselves who bear the greatest blame, there's some negligence there. I'm not sure why you're going back on your own argument in 3. I'm sure you could find people whose belief that their buying of oil doesn't affect the climate was cemented by the deceit of those companies. And if someone would start suing companies for negligent burning of hydrocarbons, I'm sure there would be CEO's that would happily point their fingers at the oil companies in accusation of deceit. The trespass one seems ridiculous, I guess because a judge isn't supposed to let frivolous things affect their judgement it's a freebie to throw in? Anyway, 2 and 3 seem to at least have some merit to my untrained eyes. Maybe it's more about sending a message than actually winning a lawsuit? If a judge takes the suit seriously and the oil companies are forced to publicly weasel out of these charges, wouldn't that be some sort of a win for the movement?

Etrnl_President 3y ago
Governments are the biggest polluters bu far, and tend to waive accountability for themselves.
- candiodari 3y ago
  ... AND they are the biggest benefactors, from Aramco to Shell and Total. Most have redirected at least some part of the income to individuals.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > Governments are the biggest polluters in what ways?
  - Etrnl_President 3y ago
    Mostly military, and related industries, but the EPA itself recently polluted an entire town's drinking supply.
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > the EPA itself recently polluted an entire town's drinking supply. hmmm i tried searching for this but nothing turned up (that noticed)... got a good link?

smsm42 3y ago

I wish there were some law like "if you waste the court system resources for PR and virtue signaling, you are personally liable for triple costs" but it's likely impossible. So the incentive to pull stunts like this is always there.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
Sadly, that likely wouldn't deter this, as the county doesn't really "make" money, it relies on taxes. So it's not their money they're playing with, and the ones pushing this lawsuit probably aren't elected anyway, so they don't risk much.
- smsm42 3y ago
  No, I mean personal liability for whoever signed under initiating this suit (and maybe sanctions against the lawyers too). US legal system is, however, maximally removed from this - instead, we have a concept of immunity where it is very hard to prosecute a government officer for something they did while executing their office. Ancient Athenians had it simpler - if you bring a lawsuit and less than 1/5 of jurors vote in your favor, you get a heavy fine for wasting everybody's time. Unfortunately, wouldn't work in the US - about 1/3 would vote for anything if it helps their tribal interest and hurts the opposite tribe, even if it's ruinous for the society in general.

paulddraper 3y ago

what is going on in Oregon county? Complete amateur hour

_8j50 3y ago

For #3, not that I agree but they commissioned several studies that showed the effect of fossil fuels on climate change and went to lengths to keep it a secret. Gov/state policy could have changed if that information was made public earlier. I am surprised they didn't mention manipulation of research at unis.

DropInIn 3y ago

[flagged]