The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#2Lobbying and what seems to me to be unchecked flouting of the law is utterly disgusting.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#3I saw John Barry speak; had no idea he had a doctorate. Brought down the house, a real barnstormer.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#4“Writing is pretty isolated,” Barry said. “I enjoy the action. I like to fight.” // More coders should feel this way when it comes to issues about which they're passionate. In other words, more of us should consider becoming hacktivists -- at least on the side. As hacktivists, a wise first step towards making a difference is to treat political science as continuing education. Yes, articles like this should pique your interest. Read them. But also pick up some books and get serious.
To that end, as an alternative to "Rising Tide" by John Barry (from the linked article): I highly recommend reading (as did Aaron Swartz)[0][1] "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York". It is a brilliant, Pulitzer-prize-winning case study of the forces at play in broken/corrupt governments (and how opaque the processes which formulate and execute the policies of governance truly are).
In Aaron's own words: "For nearly forty years, Robert Moses controlled New York. Controlled it almost absolutely, overruling every mayor, governor, president, and public pressure group. He did it all without anyone ever knowing: the press, when it did cover him, covered him only in the most glowing, reverent terms. He did it all without winning a single election: the two times he did dare run for office, he was defeated so soundly as to become a joke.
"_The Power Broker_ is the story of how our "democracy" really works. How men gain power and how it corrupts them. How cities get built and how real people suffer for it. How we became a nation desperately dependent on the car."
I will add that Robert Moses was the pioneer of eminent domain (a massive blow to the philosophical underpinnings of property rights in the USA) and modern public authorities (highly insular entities which are hybrids bodies corporate & politic -- receiving money from the public with zero effective accountability to taxpayers -- hard to summarize implications, but they have been enormous).
[0] - http://www.amazon.com/review/RXOVNQ3JLY6GF
[1] - https://zolabooks.com/list/aaron-swartz-reading-list/1
[2] - for those who'd prefer to listen, an excellent narration is available on Audible -- http://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs/The-Power-Broker-Audi...
Next I'd consider: "Hacking Politics" (about SOPA/PIPA) or "Understanding Power" - a collection of talks by Noam Chomsky -- not for his ideological insights but for his manner of making observations and thought-provoking perspectives.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#5What'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 these politicians can take actions in favor of the industry with impunity.
> Jones figured there would be a period of quiescence while the industry decided how to respond. Within hours, Jindal, who was in Aspen, Colo., at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association, released a statement. “This is nothing but a windfall for a handful of trial lawyers,” Jindal said, arguing that the suit came “at the expense of our coast and thousands of hardworking Louisianians who help fuel America by working in the energy industry.”
85% of people in Louisiana buy this stuff up. They'll buy it up until all the oil is gone, and when the companies leave they'll have no jobs and their state will be a wasteland unfit for any other sort of economy.
To be fair, it's not just Louisiana. During the last Presidential election, Obama and Romney literally fought during one debate to show who was more pro-coal. There's no point in doing that if you're just after campaign donations--the coal companies can do their own advertising. No, such theatrics are to get votes in places like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, southeastern Illinois, etc.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#6“Writing is pretty isolated,” Barry said. “I enjoy the action. I like to fight.” // More coders should feel this way when it comes to issues about which they're passionate. In other words, more of us should consider becoming hacktivists -- at least on the side. As hacktivists, a wise first step towards making a difference is to treat political science as continuing education. Yes, articles like this should pique your…
I'm 3/4ths through the audio book of the Power Broker and second your recommendation. I started it while doing the 100 mile NYC Century last month (the only all-urban century), and it has changed the way I think about New York City, democracy, power, and journalism.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#7What'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 point where the rest of Louisiana (or even out-of-staters) can call bullshit on 11th hour text-swapping of bills immediately before they hit the floor -- that was just remarkable. Actions such as these should provide enough ammunition for a meaningful and sustained public opposition. Or, at the very least, actions such as these should haunt the "Jindal"s of our country in their pursuit for higher office (the presidency). Certainly raising the political stakes by that measure is possible, but it is also why the "Right to be Forgetten" policies in Europe are so disturbing (there is bound to be more to that story).
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#8What'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…
So long as they don't request assistance or funding after the next disaster (or the one after that, or the one after that), they can sleep in the bed they're making.
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#9One 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 the majority of land and/or production like Soviet Union and China. I was both dumbfounded and sad to see the amount of trash in the Black Sea along the Russian coast that was dumped there or floated into it via the danube river during soviet rule.
It's especially sad to see this sort of thing happening in the United States, which is a relativity environmentally conscious country with large swaths of protected land. I wouldn't take it as far is the following article details, but some of the ideas here would be better than the current system: https://mises.org/daily/5978/The-Libertarian-Manifesto-on-Po...
Re: The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever
#10One 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 even more problematic when the injured parties are not in contractual privity with the wrongdoer. If a coal plant in Chicago causes $1,000 of health damage to each resident, that's a multi-billion wrong. But unlike with a bank, the residents can't simply decide to do business with a different company.
There's a lot of money to be made doing two things: 1) selling people more risk than they think you're selling them; 2) foisting risk and costs onto third parties that aren't in a contractual relationship with you. So long as you do these things to a large number of people with a relatively small dollar value for each injury, you'll make a lot of money at it, and the legal system isn't great at stopping such behavior.