The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever

Post by pdq » Sun, Oct 05, 2014, 8:24 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #10

cpursley wrote: post #9

One of the things that attracts me to libertarianism is how environmental disasters are handled. Shocker but under a more libertarian system, there would not be laws that protect wealthy corporations specifically allowing them to get away with pollution. Public and private land owners would be able to rightfully sue culprits for property damage. In fact, some of the worst polluters are nations where the state owns th…

As a litigator, I appreciate the sentiment, but litigation is ineffective at enforcing the rights of large numbers of people. Say there are no bank regulations, and a bank skims $100 of the accounts of ten million customers. The bank makes a lot of money, but it's not worthwhile for any given individual to sue. Your only recourse is the class action lawsuit, with all the limitations that entails. The situation is eve…

Post by judk » Mon, Oct 06, 2014, 2:29 AM UTC

api wrote: post #13

rayiner wrote: post #5

What's tough and utterly ignored by this article is that it's not just the lobbyists who oppose you, it's ordinary people. There is a sincere and deep seated belief that it's morally objectionable to ask companies to answer for their actions in a court of law, that there are no alternatives to destroying the environment, and that such lawsuits threaten the existence of economies like that in Lousiana. That's why thes…

There's a deeper and equally sincere and deep-seated belief behind said beliefs: It's objectively true that increasing the cost of energy amounts to something like a regressive tax: it will harm the poor and the middle class considerably more than it will harm the wealthy. Among causes for our current middle class woes, some have cited the peaking of domestic conventional oil in the 1970s and the general end of extre…

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

spenvo wrote: post #7

rayiner wrote: post #5

What's tough and utterly ignored by this article is that it's not just the lobbyists who oppose you, it's ordinary people. There is a sincere and deep seated belief that it's morally objectionable to ask companies to answer for their actions in a court of law, that there are no alternatives to destroying the environment, and that such lawsuits threaten the existence of economies like that in Lousiana. That's why thes…

Frighteningly accurate. Most people shun the very act of investigating claims made by public figures if a.) (they believe) their livelihood is at stake on the issue && b.) said statements "tow the line." My take on both examples: it's up to the rest of the electorate to raise the political stakes on said issues. At least to the point where two presidential candidates can't fight over who's more pro-coal. Or to the po…

Post by selimthegrim » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 10:54 PM UTC

spenvo wrote: post #26

selimthegrim wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/10/state_judg...

Thanks for the update! Looks like the bill's poor verbiage is to blame; hopefully Clark will issue a ruling as to its constitutionality as well -- as she alluded to doing.