Is Big Coal like Big Tobacco?

Suing energy companies for global warming damages

Posted by David Roberts at 10:57 AM on 19 May 2008

Read more about: climate | litigation | coal | energy

I don't have strong opinions on suing energy companies over global warming, but the notion does seem somewhat suspect. For starters, they don't really have enough money to materially compensate the affected class of people -- namely, everyone in the world. Legal liability taken with any seriousness at all would quickly bankrupt them. I'm all for imposing new costs on companies that have been socializing risk and privatizing profit for years now, but this kind of cost is uncertain and unpredictable -- not the kind of thing that's good at driving large-scale shifts in investment. Getting compensation for people whose lives are being destroyed is a worthy goal, but this doesn't seem like the most straightforward way of getting there. I'd be open to hearing someone make the case though.

For story: Is Big Coal like Big Tobacco?
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Moral grey zones

David,

Generally speaking, lawsuits have always struck me as an inefficient way to make policy, although they do admittedly serve a purpose as a judicial check/balance on inaction in the other two branches of government.

So on balance, I agree with you. That said, if you want to strictly make a moral point (and, therefore, make the intellectual leap that moral crimes = grounds for a lawsuit), then one can certainly argue that the funding for the GHG denialist movement, dressing political goals up in shoddy science to create a false debate is reprehensible.

I leave it to lawyers to conclude whether or not that is grounds for litigation, but it is the one real moral failure on the part of the big emitters.

by Sean Casten at 11:12 AM on 19 May 2008

Missing the point

The proposed litigation strategy that I'm aware of is not against corporate polluters, it's against government for failing to protect the public trust resource, the atmospheric commons with regulations or programs that make corporations do the right thing.

Nice article in the current High Country News (the one with the Colorado license plate with the letters DRILL ME on the cover, another good piece) on the public trust doctrine and its application to climate.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 12:27 PM on 19 May 2008

Conspiracy

The suit I read about in the June issue of Atlantic magazine is based on the grounds that the coal and oil industry conspired to deliberately mislead the public and policymakers through a disinformation campaign. This is the same legal argument that succeeded against the tobacco industry.

The two lead counsels in the suit are the lawyers who headed both the plaintiffs and the defense in the tobacco suit.

I agree with you and David that this is not the ideal way to get responsible public policy, but when the policymakers and corporate media act like marionettes for the fossil fuel industry, this may be our best bet to reign in the corruption. The moral failure may become very expensive for them in the end; couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. Makes me smile a little every time I read a sock-puppet's denial post on Grist now . . .

by Robco1 at 1:10 PM on 19 May 2008
[ Parent ]

I agree with the reference

The High Country News interview with Mary C. Wood is marks a real change. If taken up and carried forward, it is the fist attempt to deal with the idea of a "commons". The ramifications could go far beyond this one complex issue.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

by wesrolley at 1:12 PM on 19 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Imposing costs...

I'm all for imposing new costs on companies that have been socializing risk and privatizing profit for years now, but this kind of cost is uncertain and unpredictable --

Most people/organizations use lawsuits when it's the last or only resort...so there really aren't any other other ways to impose new costs.

by Tasermons Partner at 1:19 PM on 19 May 2008

When is lying illegal?

That's the question I'm curious about. The article suggested that the coal companies would be sued not for producing coal, but for spreading disinformation. I know there are truth-in-advertising laws, but those don't quite seem to apply here. What exactly would the charges be? Providing false testimony?

by eriqa at 1:28 PM on 19 May 2008

Depends...

...if it can be proven that they knowing provided false information to officials or regulators, and that informations was used in the decision makin' process, that would be illegal.

by Tasermons Partner at 1:32 PM on 19 May 2008

liability?

Eriqa, it would have to be a liability thing, no? They have deliberately concealed a harmful health effect of their product, just as tobacco concealed cigarettes' ill effects. Those harmed due to being misled are due recompense.

How would the settlement be doled out? That's another sticky question.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 1:37 PM on 19 May 2008

Low Tar Car

It is more the auto industry that is behaving like tobacco industry. A perfect example of this is their shameless promotion of electric, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, many of which have marginal if any environmental benefits. Meanwhile, they are continuing to resist regulation to make vehicles more efficient. If they seriously thought that these "solutions" were going to make a difference, they would not be resisting regulation. This is the same strategy the tobacco industry took with low tar and lite cigarettes.

The overuse of the automobile is also one of the major causes of the obesity epidemic that the world is facing. Electric vehicles won't solve that problem either. The continued draining of the coffers of America to pay for oil to run cars is quickly leading to the decline of the American economy but the auto industry does not seem to care in the least.

by racc at 2:46 PM on 19 May 2008

settlement

"How would the settlement be doled out? That's another sticky question."

The settlement could just be pollution reductions. That's what the Attorney Generals are seeking in a nuisance lawsuit against the US's biggest coal plant owners.

by rsmith02 at 10:44 AM on 20 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.