Governments risk 'trillions' in fossil fuel climate litigation

Since ISDS awards are taken from public money, "It's ordinary people who will have to pay for this," she said.

This is something we should all be insanely angry about.

No good deed goes unpunished.

In the US at least no money may be appropriated for any purpose unless specifically appropriated by an elected legislative body. The courts cannot appropriate public money and spend it as it wishes. Nor can a Court cannot order an elected legislative body in the US to spend the publics money for a specific purpose. Most of the time legislatures, including Congress do not wish to challenge courts in this fashion and the courts understand they have no power to force a legislative body to vote for or against anything, though I did see the California Legislature once challenge a Federal judge that tried to appropriate state funds without the Legislatures permission to spend on prison hospitals. That might be the last protection the American public has from such corporate greed.

In the US at least no money may be appropriated for any purpose unless specifically appropriated by an elected legislative body. The courts cannot appropriate public money and spend it as it wishes. Nor can a Court cannot order an elected legislative body in the US to spend the publics money for a specific purpose. Most of the time legislatures, including Congress do not wish to challenge courts in this fashion and the courts understand they have no power to force a legislative body to vote for or against anything, though I did see the California Legislature once challenge a Federal judge that tried to appropriate state funds without the Legislatures permission to spend on prison hospitals. That might be the last protection the American public has from such corporate greed.

This misses the mark a bit. The lawsuits referred to in the article are essentially damages claims against governments, not lawsuits seeking to force the government to spend money on some public project. The article isn't about American courts per se, but American courts do routinely order the government to pay out money in damages to plaintiffs all the time. Wrongfully imprisoned? You can sue the government for that. City workers damaged your property while doing something? You can sue the government for that. Etc etc.

So, it isn't enough that the business model of these companies involves destroying the very ecosystem we live in, and it isn't enough that they get billions in unneeded subsidies and tax breaks every year, but now they want to be paid damages for actions that try to save the ecosystem they are destroying.

Sure, that makes sense. Anyone seen where we left that guillotine?

Governments risk ‘trillions’ in fossil fuel climate litigation by big oil cartels:

This would be a most unfortunate & undesirable scenario, countering all the effort that has been put into the COP26 deal.

But profit-seeking oil mongers will never give up..

Can't be helped. Part of price to pay if we want to stop using fossil fuels

But profit-seeking oil mongers will never give up..

Why should they? At least for now. We should continue to research for other environmentally, cleaner and safer fuel alternatives, but in the meantime, we should use the natural resources that we have, we definitely first and foremost be independent and never rely on foreign fuel from any adversary or country that hates or wants to undermine us, we should promote and increase oil production in the US and we have the technology to do it cleaner and safer. The environmentalists in the Democrat Party in this admin. care more about the environment than what these people claim they care about, but these same people are OK when China and India pollute that is perfectly acceptable to these people.....why?

https://www.epa.gov/uog

Big Oil has destroyed the environment with its greed.

But it's not going away, at least NOT in our lifetime or at least in 30 years at the very minimum gradually

Bought up inventions and patents which would have increased the miles per gallon but instead ensured those inventions never reached the market.

We would have to give up millions of things and that is just not going to happen. I am all for renewable energy, but I'm also a realist. 

They have killed and assassinated people who stood in the way of profits.

And they will do so with renewable energy as well.

"unfathomable profits from fueling the climate crisis"?

What utter nonsense!

People who make statements like this should cease using fuel, cease using iron and steel, aluminium and polymers. Go and live in a cave and use "renewable" "biomass" (aka firewood).

This misses the mark a bit. The lawsuits referred to in the article are essentially damages claims against governments, not lawsuits seeking to force the government to spend money on some public project. 

In the US at least if some level of government is sued and the court rules against them, then the elected legislative body that governs the agency that lost the suit must vote to appropriate funds to pay the settlement or fine. A judge cannot simply order a legislature or Congress to spend money to settle a suit. The legislative body has to approve payment of the suit. A judge has no power to spend the public's money by taking funds from any level of government to settle a suit against a public agency and as I mentioned before I have seen at least one instance where the California State Legislature told a Federal judge to pound sand. The judge in that case even threatened to throw the legislators and Governor in jail for contempt but eventually had to back down.

risk being sued for trillions of dollars by fossil fuel companies seeking compensation for lost revenue and stranded assets

Governments can appropriate land if they need to. So they can toss those cases out the window by denying the motions, citing land appropration laws. Enact laws to remove polluting industries. They can also sue those companies for the pollution they have already created. Otherwise ask the company to do something more productive and remove their pollution. Give them the choice. If it's criminal activity then the punishment shouldn't be sitting in jail but working on cleaning up all their pollution.

With appropriations though this will open the market to more entrepreneurs or force change where it's needed.

There was a book made called Cradle to Cradle that broke down the concept of recycling into two areas, regular biomaterial recycling but also technicial nutrients. That some chemicals and processes can be broken down after use then reused again (rugs for example). The author was going to release a list of additional chemicals that were possible to do this after citing many examples in the real world where this is already in use, but then never did. Likely there were lawyers who stopped that.

By continuining this notion though we can still have our technological world and end the hyperbolic nonsense hysteria of thinking you have to go back to living in a cave.

We really just need to have guile instead and use what we've learned so far. We're not using all that we can do due to special interests that will do everything they can to stop change. Free us from that, and we can have the green world we want