It appears as if the debate surrounding the hypothesis of man made global warming will be settled by the courts, as opposed to being settled by scientists. While Democrats continue to castigate big oil companies in the United States Congress, lawyers will attempt to do the same in courthouses across the country in an effort to financially cripple those companies who supply our nations energy.

Despite having similar arguments dismissed from sane minded judges who “say a ruling would require them to balance the perils of greenhouse gases against the benefits of fossil fuels—something best handled by legislatures”, Steve Susman and Steve Berman continue to shop around for an activist judge who will award hundreds of billions of dollars based on a failed scientific theory.

In February, Berman and Susman—along with two attorneys who have previously worked on behalf of the village and an environmental lawyer specializing in global warming—filed suit in federal court against 24 oil, coal, and electric companies, claiming that their emissions are partially responsible for the coastal destruction in Kivalina. More important, the suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking—by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus.

As one of the “global warming deniers” as I have been called in the past, I find this lawsuit particularly amusing on two levels. For starters, the lawsuit is filed under the assumption that global warming is caused directly by mankind’s increased CO2 emissions. Even if we were to assume this is true, the emissions in questions are not produced by the companies named in the lawsuit, but rather by you and me. While Exxon Mobil is the largest seller of refined gasoline in the world, it is the end consumer who purchases this product and then burns it for energy who is responsible for the emissions. Therefore the lawsuit should be directed at the end user of the product, such as the United States military which is the world’s largest consumer of oil products. Suing Exxon Mobil for someone else’s consumption is similar to suing a gun manufacturer for the actions of a murderer, there is no legal standing to do so.

On the above grounds alone I believe this case should be dismissed, however if the lawsuit were ever to see the inside of a courtroom, I anticipate hundreds of scientists will step forward to testify. There is currently a petition circulating around the scientific community which states in part, “There is no scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” The petition has been signed by over 30,000 American scientists, including 9,000 PhD’s thus far.

Exit question: Should the lawyers add themselves to the list of defendants as their lawsuit will increase consumption of the same energy sources they are decrying?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Features, Global Warming