|
meatcleaver -> RE: Global Warming Litigation (2/6/2007 11:49:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
This came from today's Wall Street Journal. I can't link to the entire article because a subscription is required. The link provided is all that you can get without the subscription.
quote:
The U.N.'s latest global warming report is being spun as a wake-up call. But whether or not you agree on the need for urgent action, it ought to be obvious that the absolute last branch of government that should set climate policy is the courts. As usual, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has his own ideas.
At issue is a federal lawsuit filed last September by Mr. Brown's predecessor, Bill Lockyer, asking for billions of dollars worth of damages to be levied against six automakers -- General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan and Chrysler -- because their products allegedly create global warming emissions. Source: http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB117073096294899078.html%3Fmod%3Dwsj_right_click
The article goes on to identify many other companies and industries who could be similarly cited, randing from newspapers who get their paper from trees to cattle farms whose stock expels methane into the air much more influential to "global warming" than any auto emission.
If Mr. Brown is successful in carrying forward his predecessor's plan, which by the way he said was a ridiculous pre-election move that wasn't practical, California's major industries will be reduced to outdoor marijuana cultivation and supplying day laborers to the wealthy and the movie stars.
Is it the goal of those supporting the growth industry being created by the global warming to eliminate all industry and product which is deemed to cause global warming? What product did you use today that, if tracked its production, origin, packaging, or how it got to you, is not contributing to "global warming"?
In general, why is it that most of the liberal policies currently in effect as laws, originated in the court system versus majority referendum, or Representative votes? The obvious example are the abortion laws, but there are many other examples of this tactic being used. Is it indicative that these laws are not the will of the majority but rather are the will of a pseudo-intellectual minority with money who know better and want to implement their vision of society using the courts and legal industry/system as their implementation tool?
Well such lawsuits were successful against tabacco smoke and tabacco smoke is less harmful to the environment than car emissions and cow farts. Cow farts raises a smile but I was watching a programme the other day on TV and cattle are particularly nasty when it comes to green house gases as opposed to other animals. I always used to assume that millions of bison used to roam free on the great plains so what is the difference with cattle but apparently there is a great difference and methane is vastly worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The secret is in the cow's gut and that is what makes it different to all other grazing animals.
|
|
|
|
