California Sues Companies for Global Warming!

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by mahram, Sep 20, 2006.

Do you think it is fair to sue companies for global warming

  1. yes

    11 vote(s)
  2. no

    15 vote(s)
  1. The California Attorney General is running for State Treasurer this November.

    #11     Sep 20, 2006
  2. govt should counterclaim california for emitting pot smoke into the environment causing stupidity in california and reaching as far as the white house....
    #12     Sep 20, 2006
  3. Even if there was global warming , its not the cars causing the problem, its the people driving them.

    Funny part is the socialists that did this would be the last people caught walking to work.

    State of California owns and operates thousands of cars. Police, Fire, etc, so will the State have to pay the State for causing problems??

    This is similar to the tobacco issue where you try to blame the tobacco companies rather then recognize that people smoked on their own accord.

    By now ever one must have read this article.

    California is a joke.

    #13     Sep 20, 2006
  4. Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions is credible as a possible threat that maybe irreversible. Don't you think that it would be wise to err on the side of caution in such a case.

    Let's smarten up people! There's absolutely no reason for still being reliant on fossil fuels.

    Man, Ignorance irritates me.

    #14     Sep 20, 2006
  5. I tend to agree with you but the important powers in this don't.

    Namely the largest emitters: China, INdia and the USA.

    China and India both got a free pass on the Kyoto treaty even though China is likely the largest CO2 emitter (when you count the underground coal fires they have that roughly equal all the CO2 emitted by USA vehicles). The US saw this treaty for what it was namely an economic boom for China and India and to a lesser extent Brazil.

    Euroland, Canada, and the Aussies are having trouble meeting the relatively mild reduction goals resorting to accounting gimmicks and questionable emissions trading mainly.

    For example one trade is to buy and preserve rain forrest acreage. This is a fallacy as studies show that the CO2 uptake by the trees is equalled by the CO2 emmitted when the dead trees decompose. So there is no net removal from the environment unless there is a net increase in board feet and this is not the case in a mature rain forrest.

    So, the point is, if GW is really a crisis then those nations that think that way are not reacting as if it were. Or better put by paraphrasing CS Lewis:

    "GW [Christianity], if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." The signers of Kyoto seem to be treating it as moderately important.

    #15     Sep 20, 2006
  6. nobody would care much if smoking didn't translate into huge health-care bills at some point... smokers are for the most part insolvent as far as heavy-duty lung, throat etc cancer treatment... its either eugenics, final death of SS Medicare, or fines on tobacco pushers... yr pick
    #16     Sep 21, 2006
  7. cashonly

    cashonly Bright Trading, LLC

    I believe this lawsuit in itself will cause increased global warming. Think about all the lawyers and new people heading back and forth to the courthouse and the newstrucks sitting outside for days on end, engines idling, waiting for reports. Maybe the state of California should sue the California Attorney General bringing the case to court for the same thing.:D
    #17     Sep 21, 2006
  8. if your correct, that shld help make their case shldn't it :D
    #18     Sep 21, 2006
  9. but you have to admit cashonly, its not out of the ordinary for corporations to hide facts that could thousands or millions of people. Even more recently then the cancer cases, you could see mercks vioxx case. Its always in the best interest of corporations to hide the truth or to prolong the discovery of the truth. And you have to wonder why these companies are pushing so hard for tort reform. Even in cases where they diliberating push to hide the truth that could hurt thousands like in the merck case, they want tobe protected from lawsuits.

    #19     Sep 21, 2006
  10. #20     Sep 21, 2006