In The
City of Paris goes full stupid – considers climate lawsuit over flooding, Anthony Watts discusses the movement that seeks to place
responsibility for weather disasters allegedly caused by climate change on
fossil fuel companies. Specifically:
The City of Paris decided today to explore possibilities to sue
the fossil fuel industry for causing climate damages, following the example of
New York and other US cities.
The Paris initiative was triggered by flooding
caused by heavy rains, which supposedly resulted from climate change allegedly
caused by burning of fossil fuels. Watts cites a FUBAR press
release from Bill McKibben’s 350.org.
“It’s fantastic news that cities like New York and Paris are
stepping up to protect their citizens and hold fossil fuel
corporations accountable for the harm they cause. This is a major
breakthrough for divestment campaigners around the world that have been pushing
cities to take a stand against the polluters wrecking our climate.”
My emphasis. But the fossil fuel companies are
in business only to the extent that consuming citizens that McKibben and his
anti-energy ilk claim to want to protect voluntarily buy their products. This
is true of every industry. If a consumer buys a product, and uses it the way it
is intended, then the consumer is responsible.
If a gun buyer kills someone, the buyer, not the
gun manufacturer, is the guilty party.
If a drunk drives off in his car and kills
someone, it’s the car buyer, not the car manufacturer, that is the guilty
party.
If I dump old paint into a stream, it is I, not
the paint company that sold me the paint, that is guilty of polluting.
Likewise, if we accept the Paris argument on its
face, if I buy a tankful of heating oil for the oil burner that heats my house
and supplies hot water, it is I, not the company that provided me the heating
oil, who is guilty of causing the floods.
My question is, aren't the consumers of fossil
fuels at least as legally liable as the companies? After all, it’s well known
that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So
consumers know full well (or should know) of the alleged climate effects of the
fossil fuels they willingly use. This means that the inhabitants of Paris, who
drive cars, use electricity, buy food produced on farms using fossil
fuel-powered equipment, and virtually any good produced in a modern factory,
are themselves guilty of causing the flooding in their city. What about the
city officials, who failed to ban the use of any energy produced with the
product of the fossil fuel industry and who allowed the sale of myriad products
within city limits that was produced in factories using fossil-powered energy?
In dismissing a climate change damage lawsuit
based on the reasoning of the City of Paris, Federal Judge William Alsup correctly
observed:
With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity
of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil
fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. But against that
negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the
development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal.
Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been
impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that
historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility
in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who
supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to
say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?
Fossil fuel villainization from the climate
warriors are not looking to “protect our citizens.” They are among our greatest
enemies by seeking to take away the vital energy that every aspect of our lives
depend upon. But if there is blame to be placed, every consumer need only look
in the mirror.
Related Reading:
1 comment:
Guys like McKibben would probably say energy producers have always manipulated everybody into demanding fossil fuels, so it's the producers' fault, not the consumers'. This manipulation was easy because it was easy to manipulate everybody into wanting and keeping the industrial revolution.
If the producers had any moral sense, they would've bypassed fossil fuels and gone directly to discovering, inventing and developing wind and solar power, and bio-mass. But they were too greedy to do things the hard way. So they fooled and manipulated everybody onto the quick and easy road to prosperity, hiding from them the 'destruction' of the planet wrought by fossil fuels.
If wind, solar and bio- ever become feasible, they'll then start being against that on some rationale, because their real goal is to turn the clock back to the dark ages which is the image of their notion of morality.
Post a Comment