[fredkorematsu]

As milton friedman said about this exact case that this a very hard thing to achieve both privately and via government.

Not having private property rights is more disaster than climate change at leads to authoratarian governments, widespread poverty and more harm to nature.

Sueing companies is fine but every single of those companies is eventually making profit by volunteerly offering some service to the individual.

Are we going to sue a blogger making money via adsense because google is using a data center powered by fossile fuel energy.

[defterGoose]

I'll buy that the private sector can't solve the tragedy of commons, but if governments can't, we're all lost. The fact that the system we currently exist in uses fossil fuels doesn't equal the right of those who extract it to reap unlimited profit, or to pollute others' environment no matter how gradually or secretly.

[Recurecur]

> I'll buy that the private sector can't solve the tragedy of commons, but if governments can't, we're all lost. The fact that the system we currently exist in uses fossil fuels doesn't equal the right of those who extract it to reap unlimited profit, or to pollute others' environment no matter how gradually or secretly.

This is a slippery slope to abuse and little more than lining the pockets of lawyers and the government.

Consider the next obvious lawsuit: Suing birth control manufacturers over estrogen pollution, which is in fact a giant problem.

First, entities should not be sued over things of which they had no knowledge at the time.

Second, such suits should be based on actual knowledge. The knowledge of the estrogen problem greatly exceeds that of the characteristics of anthropogenic global warming.

One of the major arguments against this particular attack on oil and coal companies is that those products have vastly benefited society and the average person. That is a very difficult position with which to argue.

[avmich]

> One of the major arguments against this particular attack on oil and coal companies is that those products have vastly benefited society and the average person. That is a very difficult position with which to argue.

This is well explained in the article. As soon as Oil Co. understood the cost of externalities in the business, it had a choice - to add the cost of neutralizing to the product (and possibly close the business) or to get sued.

Don't see any problem here.

What I do see is the problem with the judge - and maybe many judges.

[perl4ever]

"As soon as Oil Co. understood the cost of externalities in the business, it had a choice - to add the cost of neutralizing to the product (and possibly close the business) or to get sued."

Since fuel is taxed, how do you know that isn't enough to compensate for the externalities? I once looked up the estimated costs of global warming according to the National Resources Defense Council and it seemed that using their figures the full cost of gasoline is probably on the order of the price it goes for in Europe. So I think that while Americans aren't paying enough, the true cost is not very high in the overall scheme of things. Certainly not enough to drastically change society and put energy companies out of business.

[avmich]

> The knowledge of the estrogen problem greatly exceeds that of the characteristics of anthropogenic global warming.

Can you provide references for that?