Can Climate Change deniers be held legally liable for the damage they will cause?

[Fumesucker]

I found this interesting point of view on David Brin's blog.. Brin is a physicist and successful Science Fiction author and an all around very smart guy.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/real-struggle-behind-climate-change-war.html

I want to make an additional point, polemically useful toward deniers. Since they have chosen to spurn ALL qualified expert advice, their efforts to slow down energy research and efforts to achieve energy efficiency can be legally looked upon as knowing and open-eyed obstruction of efforts, by the majority, to avert a well-seen disaster. In other words, they can, according to common law and tort law, be held accountable for financial and civil damages, should that disaster come about

This point has (to my knowledge) never been openly stated. But it can really rock back your conservative neighbor. He tends to assume that, in the world to come, he will be one of the winners, regardless of what happens. Conservatives are used to suffering no consequences for being wrong -- about civil rights, womens' rights, Supply Side Economics...

...but here is a case where, if they prove wrong, those who suffer the worst effects of preventable GCC will have legal recourse to attach the assets of those who vigorously and knowingly thwarted measures to palliate the harm. Indeed, in the bitter angry world that ensues, the resources of such people will be politically and emotionally vulnerable, as well. No one will pity them.

I am not saying this in some hysterical threat-mode. It is parsed as a simple legal matter of cause and effect. And they have now been warned.

[babylonsister]

1. No. Like Inhofe? He'll be long dead. But before that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7694044

[Fumesucker]

2. Consider this further point from the replies on the same blog..

Actually, there are beginning to be lawsuits out there modeled after the eventually successful series of suits against the tobacco companies.

As I understand it, the plaintiffs' argument is that a range of corporations have acted -- knowingly -- to downplay and distort established science, and therefore take on liability for damage caused by climate change.

It's a potentially powerful and dangerous suit because the plaintiff's need not prove that Exxon, et. al. directly caused a town/village (e.g. Kivalina, Alaska) to fall into the sea, but rather that they knowingly conspired to conceal any potential culpability.

At this point, the suit is generally considered a nuisance lawsuit... but these things change over time.

[AllentownJake]

3. See bankers and the answer is no

They will demand government money to save them while the people they harmed suffer.

[Fumesucker]

7. I think it depends on the level of suffering..

If things really go to hell I think there's a significant chance this could happen, public opinion could swing it.

[DRoseDARs]

4. Well, James Watt served three concurrent life sentences...

Oh, wait, that didn't happen and neither will this.

[Forkboy]

5. I read this (and posted the blog) earlier....

It's an interesting point. Maybe those in power with the info and ability to change things ARE. If you have knowledge that something bad is going to happen and yet ignore it it's no big deal...if the only one affected is you. What about when its the whole world?

Brin has a great blog. I hope more check it out. :)

[Fumesucker]

6. Yeah, I followed your link to get there.. Thanks..

I just want to point out that this is a side discussion that's taking place in the feedback to the blog..

[drm604]

8. This is a point I've wondered about.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that someone could be held liable for essentially screaming "no fire" in a burning theater, especially when they know (or should know) that it's on fire.

[omega minimo]

9. Can Ronald Reagan voters be held legally liable for the damage they will cause?

[dysfunctional press]

10. of course not.

for one thing- they'll all be dead before there are any cataclysmic affects.

another- for the most part, they aren't the ultimate decision makers, as far as national policies are concerned, AND- they are entitled to their opinion.

[drm604]

11. They're entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

A lot of the misinformation that has been put out is very obviously crafted to mislead people about the known science on this issue. In fact, it's designed to raise doubts in the public about the nature of scientific knowledge and the scientific process.

This kind of carefully crafted propaganda is designed by people who know, or at the very least don't care about, the facts.

I'm sure there's plenty of documentation (contracts, etc.) about the hiring of advertising and PR firms to mount these disinformation campaigns. Read the Wikipedia entry on PR hack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz">Frank Luntz, specifically, read the section on what he's said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming">global warming.

The scientific debate is closing but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Notice that he didn't say "that there is no consensus", he said "Voters believe that there is no consensus". This shows, in my humble opinion, that he cared more about spin than about facts. He wasn't concerned about warning people about possible danger, even though he himself admitted that the debate was closing. He was more interested in emphasizing whatever lingering doubt he believed still existed, and he was interested in doing this for purely political and mercenary reasons, again in my humble opinion.

[dysfunctional press]

24. and they're welcome to their own interpretation of 'the facts'...

NOBODY knows for certain exactly how things will play out. it's all conjecture at this point.

at one point- the consensus among the learned peoples was that the earth was flat...or that the sun revolved around it.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

12. It is a double-edged sword. (And the law doesn't work that way.)

Any generalization that would allow the legal action posited here could be used against anyone and anything. Mayhem ensues.

In fact, this kind of thing has been discussed ad nauseum in legal circles and Brin is seriously misunderstanding the application of tort and common law to these circumstances. It won't fly, and that is probably a good thing because the implications would be horrific. The English Common Law is pretty good about dealing with ugly edge cases (like abortion, remarkably) since the system has been evolving a consistent and reasonable wisdom for a couple thousand years.


I was acquainted with Brin for many years (I might have read a book of his once -- it was social) and while he is full of interesting ideas, they tend to be half-baked upon any kind of deep inspection. But hey, most interesting ideas are like this. This is one of those half-baked ideas.

[drm604]

13. How is this different from the tobacco cases?

That's a serious question, not rhetorical.

The tobacco companies not only failed to inform people about the dangers of their products, they intentionally attempted to mislead them. How is that different from fossil fuel companies intentionally trying to mislead people about the dangers of using fossil fuels? How is it different from lobbying to prevent legislation to limit carbon output?

Take, for example, someone who loses property to a rising ocean. Wouldn't they have standing to sue and wouldn't it then be up to a jury?

Surely there has to be legal recourse against a person or organization who intentionally misleads the public about an imminent danger.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. For one thing, this is international

A smoker can point to the company or companies whose products they used, and say "you sold this product to me while knowing it was dangerous to me". Carbon dioxide is emitted by all kinds of people, corporations and governments all over the world, and there isn't a legal system that they'd all agree on. What's more, the emissions of carbon dioxide went into useful things like keeping people warm. You can't say a corporation had a responsibility to unilaterally act by closing down power stations, filling stations or whatever.

Perhaps there are cases for conspiracy that could be brought in individual countries, but that would be different from being liable for the damage. Most of the industrialised world is responsible for that.

[drm604]

17. I'm not talking about the use of the products.

I'm talking about the intentional spreading of misinformation about the effects of that use. There are companies and individuals that have deliberately and demonstrably waged misinformation campaigns.

Obviously any lawsuits would occur in courts in individual countries. I never said otherwise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Are there any countries in which spreading misinformation allows private people to sue?

I doubt it, or politicians, marketing departments and many more would have been put out of business long ago. On all kinds of information, not just climate.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

15. There are a number of significant differences.

In terms of the criminal argument, there is no sound legal case that there is any kind of attempt to mislead. The specific use of a specific CO2-producing product will not cause climate change no matter how much a person uses it. Obviously an equivalent assertion cannot be made about tobacco products. If there was standing to bring criminal charges for aggregate secondary or tertiary effects with no causal link to a specific set of responsible parties, every single thing we buy would come with a set of warnings and disclaimers the size of a dictionary. No product is an island. You can create a regulation that requires a disclosure, but you can't charge the producer with not disclosing harm that is predicated on interaction with countless numbers of other factors and products. There is no legal expectation of omniscience; this could just as easily be used as a club against nuclear power opponents.


In terms of the civil argument, there is no standing to sue if there is no demonstrable causal relationship. It is not sufficient to prove that CO2 causes the ocean to rise, you have to prove that the specific CO2 of a specific producer/product was likely responsible. Could the homeowner legally demonstrate that it was not caused by equally plausible Chinese coal power plants? Even in large-scale tort cases based on junk science -- think silicone breast implants -- the cases were possible because there was a plausible link to a specific set of responsible parties (e.g. Dupont). You can't sue causally random people and get very far.


It is a classic "tragedy of the commons" type legal problem where you have a finite resource and no regulatory authority. To make matters worse, in the case of CO2 with respect to climate change there really can't be a regulatory authority as a practical matter.

[drm604]

18. We're discussing two different things. I'm talking about suing for the disinformation campaigns

not the use or sale of the products.

Surely one can be held liable for yelling "no fire" in a burning theater if one knows, or should know, that the theater is burning.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

19. That case can't be made

Disinformation is generally protected under the First Amendment. You can't sue flat-earthers and birthers for nutty assertions that they may or may not believe.

To make a criminal case out of disinformation, you have to show direct and immediate harm, usually with some kind of mal-intent or negligence. And even in more conventional cases, this is often difficult to prove. No legitimate argument of this kind can be made regarding CO2 emissions that would not be so flimsy that it would open a Pandora's Box of ridiculous legal proceedings. Even if we allowed that one could make this argument, the causal link between CO2 and specific instances of third-order damage are simply too tenuous given current science to make a reasonable legal case.


There are two big problems here. First, the law generally frowns on these kinds of very indirect and nebulous claims of harm and there are numerous strong defenses that could be made against such claims, particularly in the case of CO2 emissions. Second, even we could construct a plausible chain of direct causality the science as it currently exists simply isn't strong and conclusive enough to establish legal culpability. There is a lot more ambiguity in the climate science than cheerleaders for both sides would prefer, and that would come out in the proceedings. (In real-life, I do work for the climate science units of the UN and some governments -- the "settled science" talking heads seriously overstate the case.)

[drm604]

20. What about civil suits?

You're talking about constitutional rights. The constitution protects people from government, but I'm talking about civil suits.

Also, I think the science is a lot stronger than you seem to realize. You're almost starting to sound like a denier. When deniers can't outright disprove it, they attempt to sow doubt with fuzzy words like "ambiguity", and by referring to people as "cheerleaders", as if anyone would cheer on global warming. That would be like cheerleading tsunamis or asteroid strikes. I accept that cancer exists, but that doesn't mean that I'm a cheerleader for cancer.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

22. I was talking about civil suits.

The basis for a civil suit is pretty weak. This has already been studied at length in academic legal circles (where I lurk) and the consensus is pretty strong across a diverse range of people.

I can't "sound like a denier", I work on the climate models you are using as the source of your assertion. The science of CO2 is well-understood, its relationship to climate change as a systems model is not. This is a distinction with a very important difference. CO2 is definitely at the scene of the crime, but the details of its involvement are a lot murkier. Someone, somewhere distilled this down to a "CO2 causes climate change" soundbite, but that is a gross over-simplification that apparently asserts more than the current science supports vis-à-vis real-world climate dynamics (to the extent we understand it). CO2 is unambiguously involved but that is not the same thing as caused, and expert testimony at a legal proceeding will make that distinction very stark. Our climate models are slowly getting better, but they are far crappier and more limited than many people seem to assume. One of the biggest problems is that we need far more data than we have to eliminate artifacts.


This kind of mischaracterization of science in the media and politics is normal. I do a lot of work as a consulting theoretical expert in an unrelated field and 90% of my time is spent disabusing people of "common knowledge". Most science cannot be accurately conveyed in the couple sentences most people are given.

[Homer Wells]

16. Nope...

because when the effects of Global Climate Change begin to be horribly apparent, and the deniers are being directly affected by it, they will begin loudly blaming the Powers that Be for not doing something about it when they had the chance.
Any pointing out to them that they were at fault will be seen as partisan character assassination, and they will howl all the more, blaming Obama, Clinton, and all the other 'Liberalz' for their discomfort! Count on it!!!



:mad: :mad: :puke: :banghead:

[IDemo]

21. As satisfying as that may be, no.

It would be like suing the band on the Titanic.

[Hugabear]

25. They are environmental terrorists - genocide is nothing compared to how many they will kill

All of the genocides that have occurred over the last century are nothing compared to how many will die as a result of unchecked climate change. Those who continue to obstruct should be considered terrorists.