What is the legal cost to firms, if 40 years from now global warning due to humans

Discussion in 'Economics' started by mahram, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. LOL the people who run the firms now dont care if 40 years from now, due to advances in sciences and technology proves that global warning due to human influences is proven correct. But similar to the ciggarrette companies back in the 40 and 50's who knew that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses but claimed that it was untrue. But due to advances in technology and science it was proven true. I was wondering what are the legal costs to companies. You can even point to other companies that decades later proved to cause illness. I was wondering if it is just worth it now for companies to admit it now, instead of waiting years in the future.
  2. pspr


    Don't concern yourself. It's not true. The next great hype will be global cooling again. That was the battle cry in the 70's and it will be coming around again soon.
  3. new$


  4. Sir,

    I think your argument may be stronger if you call it global warming instead of warning.

    While I don't think IMHO there is a direct and clear causation effect with CO2 = warmer climate in the way so far that Gore and Co have suggested I do agree that you bring up an interesting point. If there is a link then most likely companies will not end up paying the direct cost in relation to the damage that was done in the past.

    I would also like to wish everyone a great Labor day weekend.